
















































































































































-V 

* 



S ’V 





^ i > <t ^ 



oS 1 ^ ■«* 

Or v -ku ✓> „ xww 5 

'..T.’V 


Kp ; ^ V 

?%»* 


A t 

aN < •■•' . V|% «\ . 

"''o 0 X 


k 0 





.0 © - ™ 

A y< 

^ C ^6/M'^ * , fc 

c o, *,<»' >#' .. 

<y- *<*»*/V v v sS ' 

4 /0 , r A V>/ V A * 

<t- 4 at •■W'a 


</ 

* 

v - ^ d> ^ - 

u , 'C. 7 0 ’ ^ ' A> V / 7 * * S f 

G° k ^ IL i + <* " 0 




-» o> "Cf, "'" 

❖ Of- ^. 15 

y s » * ?>_ * a f* 0 £° 

T /, > ?r <*■ s l 

* ^rsaarm^ ^ ^ r 

V V 


a v ^ 

‘V •; 


-* A O ^ / . s ^0 <*“ y o # k 

**' Q? ,Vl«* ^ 

* c ^ ' °o 0° ^ vj 

❖ ae/rr/P^ + ^ ^ 






■'oo' 



. V 1 


•* " ^ y „ 

* A O * , 

Jy c 0 G * ' o_ 

t TV * ^ 

✓ 


a- \0 ■% V®§|>\‘‘ 0 c ’•*• 

• •' 1 *'/,' * •' tK '•</*-.,%' * • 

V WW . .V *• (C 5, * ^ 


V 

1 ' * '' n^° » 11 * * 0 s> 

C? ■%. 





y r \V .» 


0 \ 


x V 
0 


v v 




' * ** ^ ^ ^ 



$ ■%. v= ^° °- 

^ v 4 0 / 'o 

A-^ *• d $) 

% % 0 * 
vr^ t» 





«y V 
.' OQT 

sxS ^ 

-/,.4>vrrr v 

.. . v " ,y y 



4^‘ -V ^110 ' - G 

°* K Nr ^ - <G 

A\ . ° N 0 ^ / o 

*> ^>£N«n <* ^ ^ 

As 





0 * y 


'* A” 1 _ r .^^/L> ^ .V; < 

° •vO » 

norm**, 

4 A ^ 

y % "'" ,/^ oN<; »- o- 

"4 ^ \ w 

4 ^ * >0 o. I ^ 

. ,.. K^-'* *• 

'*’* <^. V\s^j > / ^ 




0 ' 


>y 0 ^ 










































1 


y 


o * v 


> *, <?-> rO- v« 

'f'r .'tO' ~ ' '::<:\v.ll :& ^ * 


- A? ■ <- •'. v <?V f V v 

'* <- '»'• ^ A 


A* S ’ C.“ N0 

, V^ *■£> ^ 4 -s^v. ^ O 

d£?n f /4^*5 /C _\ \ 4* ( ^\'',\\i\^5b »/* 



^ v* 


x 0 ®* 




%, ,# " 1 ' i 0 ' 1 t *.|l*’ \V 

V N s'*’'* > .<J* \> S'** 

* * ^ V>_ <V * ^ A * 4AWA, r d> * ^ 

-- IPllt: ■%• ** - mmm ° ^ ^ 

^ 4 * vwv ^ % \ 

..s' , ^ <■ /„ „ X-. .• N e ^ ' •*'' l4° .11 . , 

v ** '>*' \ \ s. rV ?V . ANL 7 x Jpy///V^2-. -f> 

•< ^ V °- ^ -v * . *. 




'>* V 

OCT 


o5 ^ 

V 



-TstmwW* x 0o -<. 

*" 4 *"* a , o’ i. 0 

,»\V'<- > .9♦ ' *"/-. c 

v —■*> ^ ^ V A, 

. C %-V . s jor-- ’/ z ^ <& 

» aV </> 

> ^y ,f ^> * 

A X oNo’ ^ ///o ^ sS /,v 

VrV f A* r\ V <* 




V> X% s' V ^ 






, - 

* vo -4 y _ 

<\ # o.^ A N ^/7, 

« <f, <y c 0 N G 4 1 0 

* o 



) C'. 4- x' oP A> * ' NS ^ _ * ^0 

^ ' * 0 <r 91 

<? 5» * -^. . ^ 'V*>- ' 

^ . % ° ^ ^ 

4 >4 2 / z 

° ■ V* 








* .*) N 0 ' kL 0 ^O ^ 

a^P $LJd * * *4 

* <4 ^ rK\ A." 4p a^’ ' 

V </> " - - 7 











































B';jSDFORI> 


£Di> & Si' £/ll OliiHi, oiLO 03^8 JIET„ 

/ ’• y i ///// ■ / iP^fy 

//is r rn ■ /// vtf/ii/ < C: ehedie/d , Set '('< f/l f - J 


iSfmnM'm'tk&Tl 


°"‘]>< on >rf 


NewSS 


'sun/ttv/ti 
Stews ji 


4Lu rJui/Ph 

wmmz 


§3 


<'/"///yV'/4a 

J/rtf’.r 


. ~Jl 




•SCc.:.,. -•'■■ 


■***»•■ mi I 


—£. 


Wyu/c rse//y//?y (ywasuy, 

'Near Pancras Old Church. 


qSQUARE 


TV a 

fGartlens 


Cooks Row 


II amp 


Bloonisbui'V Church . 

S! Cih\r ',r Church . 

Statue oCFrancis Duke oC Bedford. 
Statue of the RightHon*! i iC..ZFo.r . 
VicH'ot the (hlletfe of .furr/eon.r . 
Birds Eye liny of the BritisJi .lh/scu/u 
Kef/pel Street Chaf/rl. 

( ha/ lottc. ft/ cel (7/aftei. 

D/olle 


eoiui.cx- 


o : _ 3 ' V 


y (hurt Chape/-. 

K) lu/tise Suisse (iiapei. 

11 West Si reef ( it a pi i . 

12 Ecu/ie Street (impel . 

1 3 Crate • *// vet ( iiapei. 

14 Queen Street ((tapei . 

1 *) Li f tie li t hi . Street ( iiapei 

16 (atiioiie Cltaped . 

17 3 fPatrick. r. i'ciiooi at Industry . 

1H .)/(sites s E/ee Srhooi /or. hint is 
10 Sheitons School-. 

JO Part of /tie JVorkhouse . 

21 Tiie JVbt khouse. 

22 The Infirmary 

23 The Almshouses. 

2\EngineHouse , Hutch A* Round Hon. 

2 A Free Masons Tavern . 

X (oeere/i ot' Iratetvay Enti'ances . 

26 National Benevolent institution . 

2 7 School for Droning & Paintniq . 




e Orange 




Street 


■etluu* 


reeTjnStr 


Sutton 


Tiol' 11 *'; 


UtJAVTC 


Kirks nans % 

/'urn //Qti.fQ 




Qiieo/i StJ 


hot Ht oil 


1 




,.. ■... 




■nji 1111 n 


HiHiimuniuii ■MiimuminnniiinHniimiu 


ininmiHumaiMHiVt 




1828 


Ucw Edition 


















































































































































































































THE 


HISTORY 

OF THE 


Stinitea eristics 

OF 

tit. ©IMS TBS THE FIEIDi 


AND 

■+ 

Sit. George JBtoomshurg , 


COMBINING 


STRICTURES ON 
VARIETY 


THEIR PAROCHIAL GOVERNMENT, AND A 
OF INFORMATION OF LOCAL AND 
GENERAL INTEREST* „ . ; 

o ■ « u t •>* ,* • 

-> > ) 1 >.? ))’ >•));>» ) > 



fm 



•) \ 
< ) 



)>) 

>>, 

1 * 


' * 


By ROWLAND DOBIE. 

*» 


N 


ILontrott: 

Printed for the Author, 13, Kenton Street, Brunswick Square. 

And may be had of all Booksellers . 


1829 , 









r 




c v 


I O JL| O Of 

'oi 








6 C Mi 


( o( a * of* 
© © * « 

( ( ( (^ ** 

© © e •* 

o « t < *• r 





w 


/ 

„ o 

. ’y> 

Vi) 


London :—Printed by F. Marshall, 
30, Kenton Street , Brunswick Square. 









PREFACE, 


In the early part of 1828, an Association was 
formed in the United Parishes of St. Giles in 
the Fields and St. George Bloomsbury, for the 
laudable purpose of investigating and cor¬ 
recting the abuses which had too long pre¬ 
vailed under the government of a Select Ves¬ 
try, possessing no claims to power but what 
were founded on assumption and usurpation. 

66 Friends of Elective Vestries, and Publicity 
of Accounts/’ the object of this Association 
was to carry these principles into practical 
effect; and it has been already seen, that its 
views have been eminently successful, with the 


IV 


best prospect eventually of their complete 
consummation. 

As a member of the Committee, I sought 
for information connected with the cause we 
espoused, when it soon appeared evident how 
much the absence of local knowledge contri¬ 
buted to perpetuate the evils we were opposed 
to, and I gradually contemplated the writing 
the Work now offered to the Public. 

Mr. Parton, the late clerk of the Vestry of 
these parishes, collected materials for a work 
of this description, which was published in an 
imperfect state after his decease, under the 
title of “ Some Account of the Hospital and 
Parish of St. Giles in the Fields, Middlesex.” 

The general utility of this quarto volume is, 
however, more than questionable : a great por¬ 
tion of it involves uninteresting details of the 
Hospital grants and charters ; and the price 
prefixed being five guineas, placed it beyond 
the reach of most readers ; indeed, it is a fact, 


V 


that very few among the parishioners are aware 
that such a publication is before them. 

Mr. Parton had exclusive advantages to aid 
him in such a work, having the custody of the 
parish records, to which he alone had free 
access—a privilege of the highest importance, 
and without which any history applicable to 
the district we are treating of must necessarily 
prove essentially defective. 

Occupying a station both lucrative and in¬ 
fluential, Mr. Parton too frequently forgot the 
imparl ial province of the historian in his zeal 
for advocating the cause of the assumed Vestry 
under whom he held his appointment. It has 
been my care to evince a contrary conduct, by 
combining principle with the candour of truth, 
without which history has no claims to philo¬ 
sophy, teaching by example. Whilst, there¬ 
fore, it was necessary to avail myself of his 
researches, it has not been with a slavish ad¬ 
herence to his sentiments and opinions, by 
which “ the worse is often made to appear the 
better reasonbut I have combated them 


VI 


wherever they have appeared to be founded in 
sophistry and error. 

Since the completion of my manuscript 
copy, the decision of a British Jury has esta¬ 
blished the long-lost rights of the parishioners 
of St. Giles, by the overthrow of a pretended 
Select Vestry, whose authority had been exer¬ 
cised uncontrouled, with some deductions, 
during more than two hundred years. 

This glorious triumph was achieved on the 
23rd of July, 1829, a day ever to be recorded 
in the annals of these parishes: and, I had 
thought it essential to give a full report of the 
Trial from the best sources in my power, to 
perpetuate so memorable an event. It is, how¬ 
ever, in the nature of power to be tenacious 
and an effort is now in progress to reverse the 
verdict by a new trial, it would therefore be 
premature until a future period to enter on 
that subject, when the whole proceedings 
may be completely embodied. 


With regard to the subjects introduced in 


vii 

this volume, they are too numerous to parti_ 
cularize here. Among them will be found, 
details on the antiquity of the Village and 
Hospital of St. Giles—the first institution of 
its Parish—progress in building—political 
occurrences—extension of its population— 
division into two parishes in consequence— 
history of Bloomsbury—its amazing increase 
accurately delineated—public institutions— 
places of worship of the joint parishes—the 
vestries—parochial acts—biographical sketch¬ 
es, &c. &c. 

Finally, no exertion has been spared to ren¬ 
der the Work both instructive and entertain¬ 
ing ; and, above all, to make it a faithful re¬ 
cord of a parochial government, where abuses 
and malversations are notorious, and thereby 
guarding the parishioners in future from simi¬ 
lar evils. If I have succeeded in these objects, 
even in a remote degree, my end is answered— 
they are more invaluable in my estimation 
than the hope of profit, or the gratification of 
vanity. 

R. D. 


December 1 5th, 1829. 


ERRATA. 


loth page 25th line for 1 

11th .. 

2nd 

• • 

for 1 

12th 

15th 

• • 

for 

87th .. 

29th 

• • 

for 

101st .. 

24th 

• • 

for 

114th .. 

25th 

• • 

for 

163rd .. 

29th 

• » 

for 

179th .. 

14th 

• • 

for 

188 th .. 

20th 

• • 

for 1 

190th .. 

4th 

• • 

for 

230th .. 

23rd 

• • 

for 

272nd 

17th 

« * 

for 

327th .. 

20th 

• • 

for 

416th .. 

22nd 

• • 

for 

Note in last line 

to Lady- 


seven years” read “ two years.” 
twenty-seven” read “ twenty-five. 



9P 


“ was” read “ is.” 

“ cutilage” read “ curtilage.” 

“ a consecration” read “ as consecration.” 
u ear” read “ year.” 

“ Oxford” read “ Orford.” 

“ 38” read “ 28.” 

“ George Ill’s, reign” read “ George IV., &c.’ 
“ is only, &c.” read “ are only.” 

“ D. W. Robinson” read “ T. D., &c,” 


8th February, 1823” read “ 8th February, 1816.” 


last columns the assessed ditto. 


HISTORY 


ST. GILES IN THE FIELDS, 

AND 

ST. GEORGE BLOOMSBURY. 


Chapter I. 

The Manor of St. Giles and Boundaries de¬ 
scribed—Its Hospital for Lepers and their 
Disease defined—Name derived from a Gre¬ 
cian Saint—Charters and Grants of Hospital, 
dissejisions of its Inmates , final Dissolution — 
Cruel Execution of Lord Cobham at St. Giles's 
Gallows, 8$c. 8$c. 

The M&ifors of St. Giles and Bloomsbury 
were anciently divided by a great fosse or 
ditch, called Blemund’s Ditch, and were 
bounded on the south-east, by the Manor of Hol- 
born, or Oburn; on the north-east, by the Manor 
of Portpole; and on the south, by the Liberty of 
the Dutchy of Lancaster; on the south-west, 
by the Manor of St. James, Westminster; on 
the north-west, by the Manor of Mary-le-bone; 


2 


and on the north, by the Manor or Prebend of 
TottenhaU. 

In the celebrated register of estates contained 
in Doomsday Book, made by order of William 
the Conqueror, anno 1070, no mention is made 
of this district, except indeed a reference to a 
vineyard in Holborn, as belonging to the Crown. 
This was probably the site where stood, a 
few years since, the Vine Tavern, a little to the 
east of Kingsgate Street.* 

These Manors of St. Giles and Bloomsbury, 
under a different designation, were vested in 
the Crown, probably previously, but certainly 
immediately subsequent to, the conquest; as 


* Doomsday Book, it should he observed, minutely details 
the particulars of our towns and cities, whilst it is wholly 
silent in regard to London, it only mentioning the above vine¬ 
yard and ten acres of land, nigh Bishopsgate, belonging to 
the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. Mr. Ellis, in his Mo¬ 
dern London, p. 15, says, “ no mutilation of the manuscript 
has taken place, since the account of Middlesex is entire, and 
exactly coincident with the abridged copy of the survey, 
taken at the time, and now lodged in the office of the King's 
Remembrancer in the Exchequer." Mr. Brayley argues, that 
a “ distinct and independent survey of the City itself might 
have been made at the time of the general survey, although 
now lost or destroyed, if not yet remaining among the yet 
unexplored archives of the Crown." 

There can be no question that many important documents 
remain concealed among the ancient records : some have been 
occasionally discovered by accident, and otherwise. A short 
time since, the Charter of the Artillery Company was found 
by accident in the Rolls Chapel, after being lost 200 years. 



3 


may be deduced from the grant of eight acres* 
of land by Queen Matilda to found the hospital, 
which was expressly stated to have been a 
portion of the royal domains. 

According to Pennant, the neighbourhood of 
London, and especially towards the north, con¬ 
sisted in the time of the Romans of immense 
forests, and even as late as Henry II. these 
extended down to the Thames, and were filled 
with various species of beasts of chace. The 
City was defended by fosses on every side 
except to the south, which was guarded by the 
Thames, and it is most probable that the great 
fosse, or ditch, which separated the Manors 
under our notice, was part of the continuation 
of such a line of defence, running nearly pa¬ 
rallel with the north side of Holborn, and in 
an easterly direction connecting itself with the 
creek which ran along Fleet Ditch. “ The 
Britons,” he says, “ sought for security in 
places surrounded with woods or morasses; 
and added to their natural strength by forming 
ramparts and sinking fosses : but they preferred 
spots fortified by nature; and made artificial 
works only where nature shewed herself de- 


* First styled “ Sancti Egidij in Campis” in Henry VIII.'s 
grant to Lord Lisle. In the exchange previously made with 
Radcliffe, it was called “ Villa Sci Egidij.” 



4 


ficient. Within such precints they formed their 
towns.”— Pennant's London , Ath edit , p . 3. 

A great proportion of the soil to the north-west 
of London is described to have been very 
marshy, wet, and unhealthy, of which charac¬ 
ter these Manors partook at an early period, 
till draining and cultivation had rendered them 
otherwise; much of this was effected by the 
formation of ditches in different directions at 
an early period. 

About the time of the Norman conquest, the 
loathsome disease of leprosy was very pre¬ 
valent, which has been oddly ascribed to the 
eating of sea-fish. Orivalle, Bishop of London, 
among many of the higher classes, was greatly 
afflicted with it anno 1075, and never could 
be cured, although it is said he underwent a 
peculiar operation. 

In the present day this disease is but little 
understood, and medical men seem scarcely 
able to comprehend its symptons with accu¬ 
racy. We may notice some of the opinions on 
this subject. 

“ Leprosy, or Lepra,” says Dr. Willich, “is 
a cutaneous disorder, in which the skin is rough, 
with white eschars resembling bran, though 
they are sometimes beneath the surface, and 
accompanied with an intense itching.” 


5 


Among the Jews it existed to a formidable 
degree, and the Levitical laws were very strict 
in separating the diseased from the tabernacle, 
and from the eating of the holy things. See 
xxii and xxiii of Leviticus . Some have imagined 
it to have been the itch, contracted by this 
people, partly from their filthiness, and partly 
from drinking water of a bad and bituminous 
quality, which greatly augmented the disease. 

Calmet and other commentators have dif¬ 
fered greatly on this subject, but the exact 
nature of the malady has been much questioned; 
there is, however, little doubt but its inveteracy 
was engendered by uncleanliness—dirty linen— 
and want of baths during their wanderings in 
the desarts. 

Voltaire assures us, that there are about 
thirty diseases of the skin from the simple itch 
to the direful cancer , and many of them are of 
a formidable nature. 

“That species of the leprosy, which is called 
elephantiasis, came not into Italy before the 
time of Pompey the Great: it commonly began 
in the face, or at the nostril, no bigger at first 
than a small pea ; it spreads itself all over the 
body, which it deforms with divers spots, un¬ 
equal skin, and a rough scab : at last it turns 
black, and wastes the flesh unto the very bones, 
making the fingers and toes in the meantime 
swell. The disease is peculiar to Egypt, and 


6 


if it falls upon the king, is fatal to the people, 
for baths of human blood are the usual and 
frequent remedies that are prepared for it.”-— 
See a curious passage in Wanleys History of Alan . 

This disorder, modern medical men say, was 
an inveterate stage of the scurvy. Its effects 
render the limbs swollen and tuberous, the skin 
bloated, rough and wrinkled, the callous parts 
of the feet and other members ulcerated and 
varicated. A cleanlier system, and different 
modes of living, have almost extinguished this 
malady. 

Hospitals were founded and endowed in 
many parts of the kingdom for persons thus 
afflicted, and among these institutions St. 
James’s was founded, before the conquest, as 
a hospital for fourteen maidens that were 
leprous. Henry YI1I. first procured it for 
a palace, and it was greatly added to by 
Charles I. 

Among the earliest of these was the cele¬ 
brated Hospital of St. Giles, which was found¬ 
ed in 1117 by Matilda, (or, as she is called by 
some historians, Maud), daughter of Malcolm, 
King of Scotland, Queen of Henry I. It was 
built for the reception of forty lepers, one 
clerk, and one messenger, besides matrons, 
the master, and others on the establishment. 


7 


and she gave sixty shillings a year to each 
leper.* 

The site of the hospital was the site of the 
original parochial church, as is evident from the 
words of King Henry II.’s charter, which ex¬ 
pressly states it to have been founded “ ubi 
Johannes bonac memoria fuit capellanus,” which 
is “ upon the spot where John of good memory 
was chaplain.” The ground given by the 
crown (together with the Manor of St. Giles), 
was eight acres, upon which, says Leland, 
Queen Matilda caused to be built “ a house 
or principal mansion with an oratory (chapel) 
and offices.” That these buildings, at first few 
and small, were afterwards increased and en¬ 
larged as well as the hospital boundaries, when 
charity added to its revenues, there seems no 
doubt, but at this distance of time we can 
only conjecture. In the licence to Wymond 
Carew, which we shall advert to hereafter, 
there is mention made of a close, or enclosure, 

* Maitland and other antiquarians have been much puzzled 
to account how they were maintained with so scanty a sum, 
after allowing for the difference of the value of money at that 
and the present period. It is well known, however, that Iazar 
houses when first built were allowed to augment their means 
by sending every market-day to the markets a clapdish, to 
beg corn. Other means were also resorted to to increase their 
income. Matilda founded another hospital for poor maimed 
persons at Cripplegate; the Priory of the Holy Trinity with¬ 
in Aldgate; and the Church and Hospital of St. Catherine, 
below the Tower, (now removed to Regent’s Park.) 



s 


lying within the precincts of the hospital, and 
one before the great gate , is stated at sixteen 
acres, late in the occupation of Thomas Magnus, 
clerk, and another, same tenant, called New- 
land, twenty acres. 

Another called Le Lane, late in the occupa¬ 
tion of George Sutton, gentleman. It has 
been inferred from hence, that the hospital 
buildings were much of the same character at 
the foundation and dissolution. 

But among all the establishments of this 
kind, the most celebrated in magnitude and 
consequence was that of Burton St. Lazar in 
Leicestershire, which was built in 1135 (eighteen 
years after that of St. Giles) during the reign 
of King Stephen. This hospital was erected 
by general contribution, and Roger de Mowbray 
was a munificent benefactor to it; and we have 
records to show how intimately it was con¬ 
nected with that of St. Giles. 

The latter hospital comprised, with its gar¬ 
den, a considerable extent, and was situate 
near to the present church, a little to the west, 
and, according to Maitland, where Lloyd’s 
Court now stands, and its gardens between 
High Street and Hog Lane (now Crown Street) 
and the Pound which stood nearly opposite to 
and west of where Meux’s Brewhouse now 
stands. It was surrounded by a wall nearly 
of a triangular form, being a boundary to the 


9 


hospital and its precincts, running in a line with 
Crown Street, to somewhere near the Cock 
and Pye Fields (now Seven Dials) thence in a 
line with Monmouth Street, and thence east 
and west up High Street, joining at the north 
end of Crown Street where St. Giles’ Pond 
stood subsequently. 

The hospital was dedicated to a Grecian 
Saint, bearing the name of “ St. Giles of the 
Lepers” : it had a chapel attached to it, a house 
for its master and other officers, and continued 
under flourishing circumstances, with some 
variations, owing partly to the quarrels of its 
loathsome inmates, till its dissolution under 
the rapacious reign of Henry VIII. 

In the Hospital Chapel (or Church as it 
was afterwards called) a great taper was su- 
perstitiously burnt before its patron Saint 
Giles, which stood on a high altar at its east 
end. 

It would seem that this disease increased 
in virulence: the council of Lateran having 
decreed in 1179, that persons so afflicted should 
have churches, church-yards, and ministers of 
their own, and kept distinct from society. 

On the removal of the gallows from the elms 
in Smithfield in the first year of Henry V. 
1413, it was set up at the north corner of St. 
Giles’s Hospital Wall, between the termination 
of High Street and Crown Street, opposite 


10 


where the Pound stood, at which place it con¬ 
tinued till it was transferred to Tyburn. 

A remarkable custom is on record connected 
with the execution of criminals at St. Giles. 
A bowl of ale was provided by the hospital, 
which was given to the culprit at its great gate, 
as his last refreshment in this life, he being 
allowed to stay there for that purpose. This 
ale was given probably where the Resurrection 
Gate now stands, that being supposed to be the 
point of entrance to the hospital. The name 
of “ St. Giles’s bowl” is derived from this cus¬ 
tom, and Pennant says, that a similar one pre¬ 
vailed at York, which gave rise to the saying, 
“ that the sadler of Bawtry was hanged for 
leaving his liquor.” Had he stopped as crimi¬ 
nals usually did, his reprieve, which was actu¬ 
ally on the road, would have saved him. 

It may not prove uninteresting to remark 
here, that Pennant and others have been incor¬ 
rect in their account of St. Giles’s gallows. 
Their authority seems to be founded on the 
fact of Lord Cobham having been hanged and 
barbarously treated here during the reign of 
Henry V. anno 1418, seven years after the 
removal of the gallows from the elms, Smith- 
field. Now it is upon record, that Judge 
Tressilian* and Sir Nicholas Brember were 

* The following'account of that transaction is taken from the 
State Trials, which I copy, to show the uncivilized taste of 



11 


executed at Tyburn as early as 1388, being 
twenty-seven years prior to the transfer from 
the elms to St. Giles! 

In regard to Tyburn, I have taken some trou¬ 
ble to ascertain when it first became a place of 
execution, but have not been able to trace it 
earlier than the period when these eminent 
individuals suffered there, and I doubt whether 
any authentic record of a prior date can be 
adduced on this point. 

Fuller, in his Church History, speaking of 
Lord Cobham’s execution, says “ at last he 
was drawn on a hurdle to the gallows, his 
death, as his crime, being double, he was 

that period. “ Immediately Tresillian is taken from the Tower, 
and placed on a hurdle and drawn through the streets of the 
city, with a wonderful concourse of people following him. At 
every furlong’s end he was suffered to stop that he might rest 
himself, and to see if he would confess or acknowledge any 
thing, but what he said to the friar his confessor is not known. 
When he came to the place of execution, he would not climb 
the ladder until such time as being soundly beaten with bats 
and staves, he was forced to go up; and when he was up he 
said * so long as I do wear any thing upon me I shall not die’; 
whereupon the executioner stripped him, and found certain 
images painted like to the signs of the heavens and the head 
of a devil painted, and the names of many of the devils 
written on parchment; these being taken away, he was hanged 
up naked, and after he had hanged some time, that the spec¬ 
tators should be sure he was dead, they cut his throat, and 
because the night approached they let him hang till the next 
morning, and then his wife, having a licence of the king, took 
down his body and carried it to the Grey Friars, where it was 
buried.” 



12 


banged and burned for a traitor and heretick. 

“ Hence” he adds “ some have deduced the 
etymology of Tyburn, from ty and burn, the 
necks of offending persons being tyed there¬ 
unto, whose legs and lower parts were con¬ 
sumed in the flame.” If this definition has 
any foundation, the question is set at rest at 
once. Be this as it may, it is pleasing to reflect 
on the total abolition of the disgraceful spec¬ 
tacle of criminals being dragged publicly 
through the streets of the metropolis to receive 
the punishment of death. Even the site where 
Tyburn tree (as it was called) stood for ages, 
would be found at the present period with 
much difficulty, although it was only forty-six 
years since the last criminal, Ryland, was exe¬ 
cuted here for forgery (1783.) As a matter of 
historical curiosity, I learn, that it is identified 
with a house occupied by a Mr. Fenning, being 
No. 49, Connaught Square, which is built on 
the spot where the gallows stood, and in the 
lease granted by the late Bishop of London, 
this is particularly mentioned. In the year 
1784, the mode now adopted was first intro¬ 
duced, called the New Drop, by which much of 
the horror of these executions has been obviated. 

The first notice of this is however a most 
melancholy specimen of the prevalence of 
crime, no less than fifteen being executed on 
that occasion, June 23rd, 1784, and on the 


13 


following year, from February to December 1st, 
no fewer than the unprecedented number of 
ninety-six individuals suffered at Newgate by 
this novel process! 

In reference to the hospital, King Henry II. 
for the health of the souls of his grandfather, 
Henry I. and his grandmother, Queen Matilda, 
and for his own health, and the health of his 
ancestors and successors, confirmed to the said 
lepers the place where the said hospital was 
built, with the donation of sixty shillings yearly 
receivable, which Queen Matilda had given 
them, and granted them sixty shillings more, 
to be paid also yearly at the feast of St. 
Michael the Archangel, out of the Exchequer, 
to buy them clothes, and thirty shillings more 
out of his rents in Surry, in perpetual alms, to 
buy them lights, and then confirmed all the 
other gifts and benefactions which had been 
by others granted and bestowed upon them, 
among which he confirmed to them the church 
at Feltham.* * 

Nothing important enough to narrate occurred 
during the reigns of Richard I. and King John, 
embracing a period of twenty-seven years, 
namely, from 1180 to 1216, being 109 years 

* This village is situate near Hounslow, twelve miles 
south-west from London ; the church thus confirmed inter alia 
to the hospital was a gift of Hawysia, Countess of Ruraaze. 
We shall have to advert to it again. 



14 


subsequent to the founding this hospital, but in 
regard to Henry II. his charters'are still extant. 

Henry III.’s reign commenced in 1216, and 
continued till 1272, being of the extroardinary 
length of fifty-six years; but, in regard to this 
hbspital, was a barren period of events, except 
that a bull issued by Pope Alexander IV. con¬ 
firmed its privileges, and he also took it under 
his holy protection, whence its donations in¬ 
creased. 

Edward I. granted it two charters in 1300 
and 1303, and, from the tenor of the latter, it 
appears to have been in the wane, which is 
attributed to the dissensions of the inmates. 

In Edward the II. s reign another charter was 
granted in 1315, and there were more grants of 
estates to it in this than in any other reign. 
It then possessed most of the district of the 
parish as now formed, exclusive of a great por¬ 
tion of many other parishes in London, which 
thus became endowments to it. It appears, 
however, that in proportion as it grew rich, 
it increased in irregularities, and quarrels pre¬ 
vailed amongst its inmates. 

By this Kings charter, bearing date the 
second year of his reign, anno 1309, he granted 
to the hospital permission to stop up a certain 
way in the village of Feltham, which extended 
from the said village by the rniddle court of the 
said master and brethren unto the spring in the 


15 


same village for ever, with a certain other way- 
leading thereto also. Parton supposes, that 
the middle court mentioned, formed part of 
some building of magnitude on the hospital 
estates here, which was kept as a lazar-house, 
or place of retirement, for the master or such 
of the members who were convalescent: the 
manor or advowson of the church being vested 
in the hospital. 

Edward III.’s reign produced a new era in 
its history, he making it a cell to Burton St. 
Lazar by a charter, dated at Westminster, 4th 
April, 1354, in the twenty-seventh year of his 
reign. By this instrument he invested the 
master and brethren of that hospital with the 
custody of that of St. Giles, in consideration 
of the remission of four marks and the arrear¬ 
ages thereof, which was to be paid them yearly 
out of his Exchequer. 

Of the dissensions of this period we may 
gather something from the five charters issued 
by this monarch, and especially from the last, 
which was directed to his beloved and faithful 
Walter de Gloucester, Roger de Mathcote, and 
John de Foxelyere. It recites, that a complaint 
had been made to the King “ by brother John 
Cryspin, Keeper of the Hospital of St. Giles 
without London , that of late certain evil doers 
and disturbers of our peace, opposing them- 


16 


selves against our subjects, and the exemptions 
of the said hospital, forcibly seized possession 
of the same hospital and the gates thereof, and 
the same held by force and arms, against 
Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, coming 
there to perform his official duty of visiting the 
said hospital, was thereby prevented and shut 
out, to the prejudice of us and the said hospital, 
and certain papal letters, writings, charters, 
and other monuments, as well of privileges as 
other rights and possessions of the said hospital, 
or touching or concerning the same, were taken 
and carried away, and other outrages repeatedly 
committed, as well in contempt of us, as to the 
damage of the said keeper, and against our 
peace, &c.; and because we may not permit 
contempts and offences of this kind to be acted 
with impunity, we have assigned you our jus¬ 
tices to inquire thereof, on the oath of true and 
lawful men of the county of Middlesex, by 
whom the matter may be better made known, 
together with the names of such offenders, and 
the nature of their crimes, and such contempt 
and offences heard and determined according to 
the laws and customs of our kingdom, &c.” 

Such are the proofs of outrage of these le¬ 
prous brethren, founded no doubt on the barter 
this hospital had undergone to Burton St. 
Lazar, and from which we come at the fact of 


17 


their being subject to the visitation of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury.* 

King Edward III. also commanded the wards 
of the city to make proclamation for the remo¬ 
val of all lepers, and not to shelter those so 
diseased. This seems to have arisen from the 
plague raging in this kingdom to an alarming 
extent, after destructively depopulating half the 
inhabitants of Asia, Africa, and Europe, of 
which Hume gives us the following account. 
“ In the midst of the festivities of the court of 
Edward III. on the institution of the Order of 
the Garter, a sudden damp arose in consequence 
of a destructive pestilence invading France, as 
also the rest of Europe. It is computed to 
have swept away near a third of the inhabitants 
in every country which it attacked. It was 
probably more fatal in great cities than in the 
country, and according to Stowe, 50,000 souls 
are said to have perished in London alone. 

“ This malady first discovered itself in the 
north of Asia, was spread over all that country, 
made its progress from one end of Europe to the 
other, and sensibly depopulated every state 


* Stowe notices the refractory spirit of these periods, and 
narrates the opposition to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Boniface, on his visitation of St. Bartholomew’s Priory, 
Smithfield, when he was compelled to enforce his authority 
against the canons by blows. These Lepers probably acted in 
a similar manner, by which the hospital books and records 
were destroyed. 

c 



18 


through which it passed. So grievous a cala¬ 
mity, more than the pacific disposition of the 
princes, served to maintain and prolong the truce 
between France and England .”—Humes Eng¬ 
land , Cadelts edition , vol. 2, p. 448. 

Stowe’s Survey, p. 478, states, that “ There 
were buried 50,000 bodies in one church¬ 
yard, which Sir Walter Manning had bought 
for the use of the poor.” The same author says, 
“ There died above 50,000 persons of the plague 
in Norwich, which is quite incredible.”— Ibid . 

After the sale of the hospital to that of Burton 
St. Lazar,* it gradually sunk in importance so 

* This hospital must have been a most splendid establish¬ 
ment, judging by a paragraph which appeared in “ The Dis¬ 
patch” of‘29th June, 1828, as follows:— 

“ Thursday, 26th June, 1828, the Manor and Estate of 
Burton St. Lazar, and formerly a hospital which was anciently 
called Burton St. Lazar, and situate in Leicestershire, was 
sold at the Mart. It was founded in the reign of King Ste¬ 
phen for poor leprous brethren. The estate is principally 
meadow and pasture, and is celebrated for the cheeses made 
there, and which are carried to Stilton for sale. The property 
contains 1100 acres—a manor, with the freehold tithes of the 
whole estate. The manor abounds with game, and the prin¬ 
cipal fox cover for the Leicestershire hunt, which is part of 
the property, is held by Col. Lowther. 362 acres of the es¬ 
tate is freehold, and the remainder is held under the Bishop 
of Ely during three lives, aged 27, 54, and 63, renewable 
according to the custom of church of England leases.” 

The estate was sold in one lot at *£30,000, timber to be 
taken at a valuation. This maguificent endowment for loath¬ 
some lepers flourished 412 years, when, like other monastic 
institutions, it was suppressed by the rapacious avarice of 
Henry the Eighth. 



19 


that it was entirely under the controul of that 
foundation previous to its dissolution, and its 
final fall was completed by the exchange of its 
best estates by Henry VIII. in 1537, 191 years 
after the above sale. 

In the exchange made by that monarch, the 
interests of the hospital were completely sa¬ 
crificed. By deed dated anno 1537, Thomas 
Ratcliffe, then master of Burton and warden of 
St. Giles, with the consent of the brethren, 
granted at the instance of the king, the greater 
part of the hospital, land, &c. in St. Giles’s, 
with the manors of Feltham and Heston, and 
other premises, to the crown, in consideration of 
receiving the manor of Burton St. Lazar, &c. 
in Leicestershire, late the property of the monas- 
try of St. Mary de Valdy, in the county of 
Lincoln, and which only two years after 
came into his hands in consequence of the dis¬ 
solution. The estates of St. Giles’s hospital, 
so exchanged, may be here noticed to shew the 
extent of its endowments at this period. 

1. The manors of Feltham and Heston, in 
Middlesex. 

2. Two acres of land in the fields of St. Mar¬ 
tin, Westminster. 

3. Twenty-five ditto, lying in the village of 
St, Giles, 

4. Five acres ditto, lying in Colman’s-hedge 
field, and five ditto in a close near it. 

c 2 


20 


5. One close called Conduit Close, containing 
about five acres* 

6. One ditto, called Meersheland, one mes¬ 
suage called the Whyte Hart, and eighteen 
acres of pasture to the same messuage belonging. 

7. One messuage, called the Rose, and one 
pasture belonging thereto ; and 

8. One ditto, called the Vyne, situate and be¬ 
ing in the said village of Saynt Gyles. 

In St. Gyles's village forty-eight acres were 
thus transferred, exclusive of the marsh lands, 
and Rose closes, and the several messuages 
mentioned above. There are omitted,—the 
Hospital and its site; the manor of St. Giles ; 
the Pittaunce Croft; Le Lane; New Land; 
and some lesser places. 

The ten acres in and about Coleman’s Hedge, 
were in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields. 
The church of Feltham and its glebes, lands, 
tythes, and oblations, were reserved to the said 
master, and probably the hospital estates at 
Edmonton, in the city of London, and the va¬ 
rious parishes in its suburbs, no mention being 
here made of them.* 


* According to Parton, the transfer of St. Giles’s hospital 
to Burton St. Lazer, in 1354, operated much to the detriment 
of the village, by its extinguishing the small landholders, as 
may be verified by reference to the old deeds relative thereto 
still extant. The dissolution and the grant to Lord Lisle 
effected a further change both in population and extent. 



21 


The history of the hospital of St. Giles, from 
the dissolution of Burton St. Lazar, with its 
dependant cell of St. Giles’s hospital, anno 
1539 to 1547, when the site of the hospital 
and its appendages were thus parcelled out to 
various possessors, is short. 

As it required no separate deed of surrender 
in resigning the hospital into the king’s hands, 
it being included in that of Burton St. Lazar, 
some information is lost which it might have 
been gratifying to know, namely, as to the 
number of officers, &c. then on the foundation, 
who, (if not lepers) would have been required 
to sign such deed. That the establishment 
was much reduced there is little doubt, from 
several circumstances before stated. 

Henry kept the hospital and its precincts six 
years in his own possession, as he retained for a 
length of time those of St. John of Jerusalem, 
St. Bartholemew, and others, apparently from 
their nearness to town, and in 1545, bestowed 
it on Lord Lisle, together with Burton St. La¬ 
zar, by the following grant. Rent to the crown 
£4 : 6s. : 3d. 

“The king, to all whomitmay concern, sends 
greeting. Be it known, that we, in consideration 
of the good, true, faithful, and acceptable counsel 
and services to us, by our beloved counsellor 
John Dudley, knight of the most noble order of 
the garter, Viscount Lisle, and our great Admi- 


22 


ral of England, before time done and performed, 
of our special grace, and of our certain know¬ 
ledge and mere motion, have given and granted, 
and by these presents do give and grant, to 
the said John Dudley, Viscount Lisle, all the 
late dissolved hospital of Burton St. Lazar, 
otherwise called the hospital of Saint Lazarus 
of Burton, with all its rights, members, and ap¬ 
purtenances, in our county of Leicester, lately 
dissolved, and in our hands now being, and all 
that the late hospital of St. Giles in the Fields, 
without the bars of London, with all its rights, 
members, and appurtenances, in our said county 
of Middlesex, in like manner dissolved of late, 
and in our hands now being. And also all that 
our rectory and church of Feltham, with all its 
rights, members, and appurtenances, in our said 
county of Middlesex, to the late hospital of 
Burton aforesaid, belonging and appertaining, 
or being part or possession thereof, and the 
advowson, donation, free-disposition, and right 
of patronage of the vicarage of the parish of 
Feltham, in our said county of Middlesex, of 
the possessions of the late hospital of Burton 
aforesaid, being, belonging, and appertaining. 

“And also all and singular their manors , 
messuages, rectories, churches, &c. (amongst 
others) in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields, 
without the bars of London, and in Holbourne, 
.Feltham, and Edmonton, (Edlemeton,) ifl our 


23 


said county of Middlesex, and in the city of 
London, and elsewhere, and wheresoever, with¬ 
in our kingdom of England, to the said late 
hospital of Burton St. Lazarus, otherwise the hos¬ 
pital of Burton St. Lazar, and of the said late hos¬ 
pital of St. Giles in the Fields, without the bars 
of London, or either of the same late hospitals 
of Burton aforesaid, in anywise belonging, or 
appertaining, or as parcel, or possession of the 
said late hospital of Burton aforesaid, and the 
said late hospital of St. Giles in the Fields, or 
either of the said late hospitals heretofore pos¬ 
sessed, known, accepted, used, are reputed to 
belong.” 

By this grant, all the possessions of the hos¬ 
pital of St. Giles, (not expressly mentioned in 
the exchange with the king) were vested in 
Lord Lisle. They consisted of the hospital, its 
site, and gardens, the church and manor of St. 
Giles, the Pittaunce Croft, Newland, Le Lane, 
and other lands in the parish of St. Giles. 
Also of the church of Feltham, and lands at 
Edmonton, and of the several rent charges, and 
hereditaments in the city of London, and in the 
suburbs thereof, and in the fields of Westmin¬ 
ster, and at Charing, as described in the hospital 
possession. 

After this grant Lord Lisle fitted up the prin¬ 
cipal part of the hospital for his own residence, 
leasing out other subordinate parts of the struc- 


24 


ture, and portions of the adjoining grounds, 
gardens, &c. and at the end of two years he 
conveyed the whole of the premises to John 
Wymonde Care we, Esq. by licence from the 
king, in the last year of his reign. 

“ The king, to all whom it may concern, 
sends greeting. Know ye, that we, of our 
special grace, and in consideration of the sum 
of seven pounds and sixteen shillings, paid to 
us in our hanaper, do grant and give licence, 
and by these presents, have granted and given 
licence, for us and our heirs, as much as in us 
lies, unto our beloved John Dudley, Knight of 
our Order of the Garter, Viscount Lisle, and our 
great Admiral of England, to grant and sell, 
dispose of, alienate or acknowledge by fine in 
our court, before our justices of our common 
bench, or in any manner whatsoever at his plea¬ 
sure, unto John Wymonde Care we, Esq. all 
that his mansion, place, or capital house, late the 
house of the dissolved hospital of St. Giles in 
the Fields, in the county of Middlesex,” &c. &c. 

This charity, founded by royal munificence, 
had subsisted under varied circumstances from 
1117 to 1547, forming a period of 430 years, 
when it finally fell a prey to the rapacity of a 
monarch, whose “ catalogue of vices,” as Hume 
remarks, “would comprehend many of the 
worst qualities incident to human nature.” 


25 


The capital mansion or residence which Lord 
Lisle fitted up for his own accommodation, was 
situate where the soap manufactory of Messrs. 
Dix and Co. now is, in a parallel direction with 
the church, but more westward. It was after¬ 
wards occupied by the much celebrated Alice, 
Duchess of Dudley, who was buried therefrom 
in the reign of Charles IL anno 1669. aged 90. 
This house was afterwards the town residence 
of Lord Wharton; and Strype notices it thus, 
“ Lloyd’s Court is divided from Denmark Street 
by Lord Wharton’s house and gardens, which 
fronts St. Giles’s Church.” The house ap¬ 
propriated to the master of the hospital, was 
situate where Dudley Court has been since 
built, and is mentioned as occupied by Dr. 
Borde, in the transfer from Lord Lisle to Sir 
Wymonde Carewe, which is said to have been 
afterwards the rectory house, being given by 
the Duchess for that purpose. It was known 
by the name of the White House, and since the 
Court has been substituted, the rents have been 
to this day collected by the rectors, it being 
their property for ever. 

There were various buildings connected with 
the hospital precincts,* and the wall which sur¬ 
rounded them, and its gardens and orchard, was 
not entirely demolished until the year 1639. 


See Aggas’s Plan of London. 





26 


The first historical fact of importance, in 
which the name of St. Giles’s village is men¬ 
tioned, is the pretended conspiracy of the Lol¬ 
lards, and the cruel death of their supposed 
leader, Lord Cobham, in 1418, as before alluded 
to, and which, for its local interest, may well 
claim our attention at some length, before we 
proceed to other parts of our history. Lord 
Cobham was charged with the heresy of Wick- 
liffe,* whose followers were stigmatized with the 
name of Lollards, and he was much persecuted 
by the Primate Arundel, who, according to Bale, 
gave him, for his instruction, the following tests, 
and allowed him two days to consider of them. 

"The fayth and the determinacion of holy church, touchyng 
the blissfull sacramente of the aulter is this : That after the 
sacramentall wordes ben sayde by a prest in hys masse. The 
materiell bred that was before, is turned into Christes verray 
body, and the materiell wyne that was before, is turned into 
Christes verray blode,and there lewethin the aulter, no materiell 
bred, ne materiell wyne, the wych wer there before the seying 
the sacramentall wordes. How lyve ye this articul ? Holy 
Churche hath determyned that every christen man lyving here 
bodilie, in erthe oughte to schryve to a prest ordeyned by the 
churche, if he may come to hym: How fele ye this articul • 


* This celebrated reformer, among other tenets, held, " That 
all the sins committed in the world are inevitable and neces¬ 
sary, that God could not prevent the sin of the first man, 
nor pardon it without the satisfaction of Christ, all being 
matters of necessity; that God approves of our becoming 
sinners; that he obliges us to commit sin; and that man 
cannot act better, or otherwise, than he does act,” &c. &c. 
See Vaughan’s Life of Wickliffc 



27 


Christe ordeyned St. Petir the Aposieli to bene hys vicarie in 
erthe, wlios see ys the Church of Rome, ordeyning and graunt- 
ing the same power that he gaf to Petir shuld succede to all 
Petir’s successors, the wych we callyn now Popes ©f Rome ; 
by whose power in churches, particular special ben ordeyned 
Prelates, Archbyshopps, Byshopps, Curates and other degrees, 
to whom christen men oughte to obey after the lawes of the 
churche : How fele ye this aiticul ? Holy churche hath deter- 
myned that it is need full for a christen man to goo a pylgry- 
mach to holy places, and ther specially to worshyp holy 
reliques and ymages of seyntes, apostells, martirs, confessours, 
and all seyntes approoved be Churche of Rome. This is de¬ 
termination of holy church : How fele ye this articul ?” 

Such are some of the dogmas our ancestors 
were called upon to believe, under pain of being 
burnt to ashes! 

“Lord Cobhamwas brought before the Pri¬ 
mate, Bishops, and Doctors, September 25, 
1414, and repeatedly refused to profess his 
belief of the several articles contained in the 
above paper. The Archbishop then “ modestly , 
mildly , and sweetly” as he says himself, pro¬ 
nounced a sentence of condemnation against him 
as an obstinate heretic, and delivered him over 
to the secular arm, the meaning of which was 
well known. He found means to escape from 
the Tower the night previous to his intended 
execution, and escaped into Wales, were he 
remained concealed four years. Soon after his 
escape, a report was industriously circulated 
by the clergy, that he was at the head of 20,000 
Lollards in St. Gyles Fields,” which appears to 


28 


have had no foundation whatever, although 
Hume seems to give credit to it. 

Fuller, in his Church History, says, “ It is 
laid to the charge of Lord Cobham, that though 
not present in person, with his counsel he 
encouraged an army of rebels, no fewer than 
20,000, which in the dark thickets, expounded 
in our age into plain pasture, St. Giles's Fields , 
nigh London , intended to seize the king’s person, 
and his two brothers, the Dukes of Bedford and 
Gloucester. Of this numerous army thirty-six 
are said to have been hanged and burnt, though 
the names of three only are known, and Sir 
Roger Acton, knight, the only person of quality 
named in the design. For mine own part, I 
must confess myself lost in the intricacies of 
these relations : I know not what to assent to. 
On the one hand, I am loath to load Lord Cob- 
ham’s memory with causeless crimes, knowing 
the perfect hatred the clergymen of that age 
beared unto him, and all that looked towards 
the reformation in religion. Besides, that 20,000 
men should be brought into the field, and no 
place assigned whence they were to be raised, 
or where mustered, is clogged with much im¬ 
probability. The rather, because only the three 
persons as is aforesaid are mentioned by name 
of so vast a number. 

“ This is most true, that Lord Cobham made 
his escape from the Tower, wherein he was 


29 


imprisoned, and fled into Wales, where he lived 
four years, being at last discovered and taken 
by the Lord Powis; yet, so, that it cost some 
blows and blood to apprehend him, till a woman 
at last, with a stool, broke Lord Cobham’s leggs, 
whereby being lame, he was brought up to 
London in a horse litter. At last he was drawn 
on a hurdle to the gallows: his death, as his 
crime being double, he was hanged and burned 
for a traitor and heretick, &c. Stage poets have 
themselves been very bould with, and others 
very merry at, the memory of Sir John Oldcas- 
tle, (Lord Cobham) whom they have fancied a 
boon companion, or jovial royster, and yet a 
coward to boot, contrary to the credit of all 
chronicles, owning him a martial man of merit. 
Sir John Falstaff hath derived the memory of 
Sir John Oldcastle,* and of late is substituted 
buffoone in his place, but it matters as little 
what petulent priests, as what malicious poets, 
have written against him.” 

As whatever regards this celebrated martyr 
is interesting, I subjoin a further account of 
him. “ A reward was offered the 11th of Jan- 
uary, 1415, soon after his escape from the Tow¬ 
er, of 1000 marks to any who should apprehend 
him, and other tempting offers were held out 
through the influence of Chichely, who suc- 

* He obtained his Peerage by marrying the daughter of 
Lord Cobham, who so firmly opposed Richard II. 



30 


ceecled Arundel as primate. None of these 
had any effect for several years; but at length 
he was apprehended, after some resistance, by 
Lord Powis, in December, 1418, and brought 
to Westminster, where a Parliament was sitting, 
by which he was condemned on his former 
sentence, to be strangled and burnt.” “ Upon 
the day appointed he was brought out from the 
Tower, the 25th of December, with his arms 
bound behind him, having a very chearful 
countenance. Then was he laid on a hurdle, 
as though he had been a most haynous trai- 
toure to the crowne, and so drawne forth into 
Sainct Gyles Felde, whereat they had set up a 
new paire of gallowes. As he was comen to the 
place of execution, and was taken from the 
hurdle, he fell downe devoutly upon his knees, 
desyring Almighty God to forgive his ennemies. 
The cruel preparations of his torments, could 
make no impression of terror upon him, nor 
shock his illustrious constancy, but in him were 
seen united the fearless spirit of a soldier, and 
the resignation of a Christian. Then he was 
hanged up ther by the middle in eliayns of 
yron, and so consumed alive in the fyre, praysing 
the name of God so long as his life lasted.”— 
See Hume and Henry's History of England , Fox's 
Acts and Monuments , State Trials , <$c. 

The first toll ever imposed in England had 
its origin in St. Giles’s, of which the following 


31 


account is given :—In 1346, King Edward III. 
granted a commission to the master of the hos¬ 
pital of St. Giles, and to John de Holborne, 
empowering them to levy tolls , (“ perhaps,” says 
Anderson, “ the earliest known by any remain¬ 
ing records,”) “ upon all cattle, merchandize, 
and other goods for two years, passing along 
the public highways leading from the bar of the 
old Temple,” (i. e. Holborn Bar, between which 
and Chancery Lane, then called New Street, the 
ancient house of the Knight Templars stood) 
to the said hospital, and also along the Charing 
Road, (probably St. Martin's Lane,) and ano¬ 
ther Highway called Portpoole, (now Gray’s 
Inn Lane,) for the purpose of repairing the said 
highways, which, by the frequent passing of 
carts, wains, horses, and cattle, hath become 
so miry and deep as to be nearly impas¬ 
sable.” The rates upon the several articles 
amounted to about one penny in the pound on 
their value, and were to be paid by all, except 
lords, ladies, and persons belonging to religious 
establishments, or the church .—See Rymefs 
Foedera . 


32 


Chapter II. 

St. Giles viewed as a Suburb Village—Its rural 
Character—Gradual Extension of Buildings — 
and a variety of other Information , Illustra¬ 
tions, 8$c. 

Hitherto our attention has been chiefly drawn 
towards the history of the Hospital, an object 
of veneration to the antiquarian, and of some 
interest to the local residents; we will now 
devote ourselves to St. Giles, in its progress 
from a village to its present consequence. In 
doing which, it may not te unuseful to premise 
some notices of the metropolis and its vicinity 
at an early period. 

The suburbs of London and Westminster, and 
the parishes thereunto belonging, may be con¬ 
sidered anciently as forming so many distinct 
villages. For instance, the village of Tyburn, 
or Tyborn, formed part of the district we are 
treating of, and it is said to have stood where 
the north-west part of Oxford Street now is ; 
Mary-la-bonne Court House, near Stratford 
Place, being supposed, from the number of 
human bones dug up there in 1729, to stand 
upon the site of the old church and cemetery. 
Mary-la-bonne owes its rise to the decay of 


33 


Tyborne, it having with its village church fallen 
into decay and desertion, and been robbed of 
its vestments, bells, images, and other decora¬ 
tions. There was a brook or rivulet near this 
decayed church, which was of such antiquity 
as to be made mention of in Doomsday Book; 
and in the decretal sentence of Stephen, Arch¬ 
bishop of Canterbury in 1222, it is expressly 
called Tyburn, from which it doubtlessly de¬ 
rived its ancient names. 

Near the east end of this village, in what is 
now Oxford Street, there was a bridge over the 
rivulet alluded to, and near it stood the Lord 
Mayor’s Banqueting House, in the vicinity of 
which the citizens had nine conduits erected 
about the year 1238, for supplying the city 
with water; but having been better supplied 
from the New River, the citizens in the year 
1703, let the water of these conduits on lease 
for £700 per annum. 

Malcolm, and other writers on the metropolis, 
have remarked on the rural state of its vicinity, 
even at an early period of Queen Elizabeth’s 
reign, and aided by the much celebrated Plan 
of Aggas, published in the year 1578, it is 
competent for any one to observe how much 
has been effected in buildings and extension up 
to the present time. In her reign the chief 
part of London lay between Cornhill and the 
Thames. Cornhill was then a corn market, and 

D 


34 


had been so time out of mind, from which it 
derived its name. Goodman’s fields was a ten¬ 
ter ground, and Smithfield used for bleaching 
cloth; Goswell Street was the high road to St. 
Albans; Covent Garden was the rich garden 
of the Convent of Westminster; whilst mag¬ 
nificent rows of trees lined Long Acre and St. 
Martin’s Lane, leading from the mansion of the 
Lords Cobham at the village of Charing, near 
which stood the Spring Gardens. At Queen- 
hithe was the large structure for bull and bear 
baiting, the favourite amusement of the Queen 
and the court; Gray’s Inn Lane only extended, 
at this period, to a short distance beyond the 
Inn ; whilst the ground from the back of Cow- 
cross towards the Fleet river, and towards Ely 
House, was either entirely vacant or occupied 
in gardens. From Holborn Bridge to the vici¬ 
nity of the present Red Lion Street the houses 
were continued on both sides, but farther up 
to about Hart Street, Bloomsbury, the road 
was entirely open; a garden wall there com¬ 
menced, and continued to near Broad St. Giles 
and the end of Drury Lane, where a cluster of 
houses, chiefly on the right, formed the principal 
part of the village of St. Giles, only a few other 
buildings appearing in the neighbourhood of the 
church and hospital, the precincts of which were 
spacious and surrounded with trees. Beyond 
this all was country, both north and south, and 


35 


the Oxford and other main roads were distin¬ 
guished only by avenues of trees. From the 
Oxford road, southward to Piccadilly, called 
the way from Reading, and thence along the 
highways named the Haymarket and Hedge 
Lane, to the vicinity of the Mews, not a house 
was standing; and St. James's Hospital and 
three or four small buildings near the spot late¬ 
ly occupied by Carlton Palace, were all that 
stood near the line of the present Pall Mall. 
St. Martin’s Lane had only a few houses beyond 
the church, abutting on the Convent Garden, 
(now Covent Garden), which extended quite 
into Drury Lane, and had but three buildings 
in its ample bounds. Not a house was standing 
either in Long Acre, or in the now populous 
vicinage of the Seven Dials, nor yet in Drury 
Lane, from near Broad Street, Giles, (as it was 
then called) to Drury House, at the top of 
Wych Street. Nearly the whole of the Strand 
was a continued street, formed however of 
spacious mansions and their appropriate offices, 
the residences of noblemen and prelates. 
Those on the south side had all large gardens 
attached to them extending down to the Thames, 
and have mostly given names to the streets, &c. 
that have been built on their respective sites. 

Among the suburb villages stood anciently 
that of St. Giles in the Fields, or, as it has 

been called in old records ‘ the verie pleasant 
d 2 


village of St Giles' The name it bears was 
evidently derived from its hospital being called 
at an early period of its history, “ St. Giles of 
the Lepers”,* and “ the Parish of the Hospital 
of St. Giles of the Lepers.” On the suppres¬ 
sion of the hospital it assumed the name of 
“ St. Giles in the Fields,” or “ in campis,” to 
distinguish it from St. Giles Cripplegate, and 
other churches so dedicated, and as descriptive 
of its rural situation in regard to the city. In 
ancient records, according to Newcourt, it is 
written “ St. Giles, extra London;” and Parton 

* St. Giles, the patron of this hospital and parish, and 
also of many others both in England and other countries, is 
said by Butler, in his Lives of the Saints, and by others, to 
have been an Athenian by birth, and of noble extraction. He 
flourished, say they, in the seventh and eighth centuries, and 
was possessed of piety and an extreme love of solitude. Quit¬ 
ting his own country he retired to France, and formed an her¬ 
mitage near the mouth of the Rhone. He afterwards retreated 
finally to a deep forest, and immured himself in the neigh¬ 
bourhood of Nismes, where, secluded, he passed many years. 
It is said the hunters pursued a tame hind who flew to this 
Saint for protection, when an arrow intended to kill it, 
wounded him, but he continued his prayers, and refused a re- 
compence offered him for the injury. This hind had long 
nourished him with her milk, and had accidentally strayed into 
danger. This adventure made him a great favourite with 
the French king, but nothing could induce him to quit his 
retirement. Towards the end of his life he admitted several 
disciples and founded a monastery, where excellent discipline 
prevailed. It became afterwards a Benedictine Abbey, and 
since a Collegiate Church of Canons. A considerable town 
was built about it, called St. Giles. This Saint is commemo¬ 
rated in the Martyrologies of Bede and others. St. Giles 
and his hind has often been a favourite subject for artists. 



37 


supposes, with reason, that its boundaries were 
in remote times much more extensive than 
now,* but in point of population truly insigni¬ 
ficant, containing, in the early part of the four¬ 
teenth century, including the hospital inmates, 
only 100 inhabitants.^ 

In its ancient state, like its surrounding vici¬ 
nity, St. Giles’s district presented a marshy wet 
aspect, as is apparent from its ditches and neigh¬ 
bouring brookes or bournes, as they were then de¬ 
nominated, instance Old-bourne, West-bourne, 

* Tottenhall or Totnam Hall, from whence Tottenham Court 
Road takes its name, was formerly included in the bounds of 
St. Giles’s parish. It stood where the Adam and Eve now 
stands, and was a mansion of eminence in Henry III.’s time. 
Its owner was William de Tottenhall. It was a house of en¬ 
tertainment in 1645. 

f In the first plan of London extant drawn by Aggas, before 
spoken of, and re-published by Vertue in 1748, is the following 
description. “ The part of the north-west suburbs of the City 
of London, since called St. Giles in the Fields, was, about 
the time of the Norman conquest, an unbuilt tract of country, 
or but thinly scattered with habitations. The parish derived 
its name from the hospital dedicated to that saint, built on the 
site of the present church by Matilda, Queen of Henry I., 
before which time there had only been a small church, or ora¬ 
tory, on the spot. It is described in old records as abounding 
in gardens and dwellings, in the flourishing times of the hos¬ 
pital, but declined in population after the suppression of that 
establishment, and remained but an inconsiderable village till 
the end of the reign of Elizabeth, after which it was rapidly 
built on, and became distinguished for the number and rank of 
its inhabitants.” The latter part of this statement, at least, 
was evidently added by Vertue, and there are also prefixed 
further remarks on the increase of this parish, and the taking 
from it the new division of St. George Bloomsbury. 





38 


Tybourne, See. It became, however, healthy 
in proportion as it became drained, and as it 
increased in sewers, and as early as the reign 
of King John, 1213, it was laid out in garden 
plots, cottages, and other buildings to a certain 
limited extent.* 

As early as Henry III/s reign, it assumed 
the appearance of a scattered country village, 
having shops and a stone antique Cross, where 
High Street now stands, and its probable depen- 
dance was chiefly on the hospital, which had 
been rendered the more important by the en¬ 
dowments of the preceding monarch. In 1225, 
or thereabout, stood a country blacksmith’s shop 
at the north-west end of Drury Lane, which 
continued till 1595, when the progressive build¬ 
ings rendered its demolition necessary. 

The lower part of Holborn was paved in the 
reign of Henry VI. (1417), and in 1542, in the 
twenty-third of Henry VIII. Stowe says, 
that “ High Oldburn Street leading from the 
bars towards St, Giles was very full of pits and 
sloughs, and perilous and noisome to all that 


* " It is worthy of remark,” says Anderson, “ that in the 
year 1372 (Edward III.) at least twenty houses in Burcher 
(Birchin) Lane, in the very heart of the city, came under the 
denomination of cottages, and were so conveyed to St. Thomas’s 
Hospital in Southwark. The shops also at this time appear 
to have been detached and separate tenements, or at least se¬ 
parate properties unconnected with houses, as they are at this 
day in several cities and towns.” 



39 


repaired and passed that way, as well on foot 
as on horseback, or with carriage, and so were 
other lanes and places that led put of or into 
High Oldbourne, as Shoe Lane, Fetter Lane, 
New Street, or Chancery Lane. Upon com¬ 
plaint whereof an act was made in the thirty- 
second of Henry to pave all those parts with 
paving from the farther part of Oldbourne unto 
St. Giles in the Fields, as also on the east-side 
of the city, the way from Aldgate to White¬ 
chapel Church which had the same ill passage, 
all to be paved and made by the feast of St. 
John the Baptist, 1542, in manner and form as 
the cawsey or highway leading from Strand 
Bridge to Charing Crosse had been made and 
paved.” 

During several successive reigns the village 
of St. Giles probably bore the same character, 
no material alteration taking place in it till the 
reign of Henry VIII. and especially during 
that of Queen Elizabeth, after the land was no 
longer vested in the hospital. In her reign we 
have mention of the immense line of thick 
forests extending from the Village of St. Giles 
westward towards Tybourne and Wickham, 
and reaching almost interminably to the north. 
This was the great black forest of Mary-la-bonne 
into which she used to send the Muscovite am¬ 
bassador to hunt the wild boar, when she found 
him such a bore that she wanted to get rid of him. 


40 


Stowe gives a curious account of a visitation 
to the conduits at Tyborn in 1562, of the Lord 
Mayor, Harper, and Aldermen, and many other 
citizens, masters, and wardens of the twelve 
companies, accompanied by their ladies in 
waggons, it being usual after examining the 
state of them, to give a grand entertainment at 
the banqueting house. On this occasion, says 
Stowe, “ afore dinner they hunted the hare and 
killed her, and thence they went to dine at the 
head of the conduit. There was a good num¬ 
ber, entertained with good chear by the cham¬ 
berlain, and after dinner they went to hunting 
the fox. There was a great cry for a mile, and 
at length the hounds killed him at the end of 
St. Giles’s ; great hallowing at his death and 
blowing of horns, &c.” This account is suffi¬ 
cient to show the rural character of this neigh¬ 
bourhood at that period, and must excite our 
admiration on contrasting it with its present 
crowded and populous state. 

Judging by the plan of Aggas, the metro¬ 
polis was neither extensive in buildings, which 
were mostly of wood and plaister, nor seemly 
in appearance; and, according to Hume, London 
was even ugly in every respect at a much later 
period than the plan in question was published.* 

* “ Not any plan or view of the metropolis is known with 
certainty to be extant of an earlier date than Queen Elizabeth, 
although Bagford, in his letter to Hearne prefixed to “ Leland’s 



41 


The first increase of buildings in this district 
seems to have been on the north-side of St. 


Collectanea,” has mentioned a view or ground-plot of London, 
as being noticed in a manuscript inventory of Henry VIII.’s 
furniture. Vertue, speaking of a plan and view of London 
with the River Thames, &c. which he describes as “ the most 
ancient prospect in point,” says “ this was reported tohave been 
done in Henry VIII.’s or Edward VI.’s time; but from several 
circumstances it appears to have been done early in Queen 
Elizabeth’s reign, about 1560, being cut on several blocks of 
wood ; the plates thereof are now of the greatest scarcity, no 
copies, perhaps, preserved, being put up against walls in 
houses, therefore, in length of time all were decayed or lost.” 
Whether that “ prospect” was the identical “ Civitas Lon- 
dinum, Anno Domino 1560,” which Vertue “ re-engraved to 
oblidge the curious,” and “ shew posterity how much was 
built of this populous city” in Elizabeth’s reign, is somewhat 
questionable, and the engraver’s notes are not sufficiently ex¬ 
plicit to enable us to determine the question. Of the “ Civitas 
Londinum” his words are “ probably this was published by 
Ralph Aggas, as he himself mentioned in that plan of Oxford 
done after this was begun.” But it must be observed, that this 
very impression is a second publication, with the date 1628, 
and that there are several alterations from the first in this, and 
particularly, instead of the arms of Queen Elizabeth those of 
James I. (of England, France, and Scotland) are put in the 
place of them. (See Walpole’s Catalogue of Engravers under 
Aggas.) Vertue’s plan was executed in 1737, and eventually 
purchased of his widow by the Society of Antiquarians. He 
describes the original printed plan of Aggas as “ 6-feet 
3-inches long by 2-feet 4-inches wide, contained in six sheets 
and two half sheets but with “ notes of explanation printed,” 
he imagines, “ on slips of paper to be added at bottom.” His 
own plan was engraven on eight pieces of pewter, and printed 
on eight sheets corresponding together with the size of the 
original. From this very curious representation, many in¬ 
teresting particulars may be deduced of the state of the metro¬ 
polis in the early part of Elizabeth’s reign. {See much more 
on this subject in Brayley’s Londiniana.) 




42 


Giles’s Street, now Broad Street, with Ble- 
mund’s ditches, about 100-feet in the rear, and 
that the metropolis was gradually extending 
during the reign of Elizabeth, is inferrable from 
the proclamations issued by her at three dif¬ 
ferent periods, namely in 1582*, 1593, and 1602, 
to prohibit building under severe penalties, on 
the plea of its being wickedly presumptuous as 
restraining agriculture, and above all engen¬ 
dering pestilence. In despite of the authority 
of the crown, and the mistaken ground of these 
restrictions, aided by the orders of the city au¬ 
thorities, the suburbs were greatly extended 
before the end of Elizabeth’s reign, and many 
of the large mansions of the nobility and others 
within the city itself, which now began to be 
deserted for the more courtly air of Westmin¬ 
ster, were separated into divers tenements, or 
pulled down to make way for streets. Popula¬ 
tion under this extension of buildings could not 
fail to increase, aided as it was by the great influx 

* The first proclamation was issued from Nonsuch Palace, 
and dated 7th July. Three especial reasons were assigned for 
it: 1st.—The difficulty of governing a more extended multi¬ 
tude without device of new jurisdiction, and officers for that 
purpose: 2nd.—The improbability of supplying them with 
food, fuel, and other necessaries of life at a reasonable rate : 
and 3rd:—The danger of spreading plague and infection 
throughout the realm. Various regulations were ordered to 
prevent any further resort of people from distant parts of the 
kingdom; and when the Lord Mayor went to the Exchequer to 
take the usual oaths, he was strictly enjoined by the Lord 
Treasurer to enforce the proclamation. 



43 


of foreigners at this period, the consequence of a 
wiser policy which this princess evinced by her 
encouragement of commerce and manufactures. 

In 1580 the resident foreigners in the capital 
were numbered by an order of council, by 
which the amount was found to be 6462; of 
these 2302 were Dutch; 1838 French; 116 
Italians; 1542 English bom of foreign parents, 
and about 664 of countries not specified. This 
return was an increase of 3762 persons (fo¬ 
reigners) within the space of thirteen years. 
Many of these had fled from different parts of 
France after the fatal Vespers of St. Bartholo¬ 
mew. (See more on this subject in Brayleys 
London.) 

St. Giles’s Parish, among others of the out- 
villages, augmented in houses towards the ter¬ 
mination of this Queen’s reign, especially to¬ 
wards the precincts of the former hospital. It 
had been suppressed in 1547, but a considerable 
portion of the wall which surrounded it re¬ 
mained in 1595, according to Stowe, after 
which it was mostly demolished, and resi¬ 
dences were built on the east and west ends 
towards the year 1600. Hoi born, even as early 
as 1595, had extended west so as to nearly 
join St. Giles’s Street, and the latter street was 
still increasing. “ On the High Street (Hol- 
born) have ye many faire houses builded, and 
lodgings for gentlemen, inns for travellers, and 


44 


suck like, up almost (for it lacketh but little) to 
St. Giles-in-the-Fields .”—Stowes Survey , 1595. 
In Aggas’s plan a considerable space is exhi¬ 
bited of fields and gardens extending from St. 
Giles’s hospital wall to Chancery Lane easterly, 
with scarcely a house intervening, if we except 
a few houses opposite where Red Lion Street 
now stands, in Holborn, and the same at the 
north end of Drury Lane, now Broad Street. 
From thence southward we see not the vestige 
of a house till we arrive at the north-side of 
the Strand, with the exception of two or three 
in Convent Garden, Drury House at the bottom 
of Drury Lane, and an inconsiderable cluster a 
little to the south-east of it. Cattle are seen 
grazing amidst intersecting footpaths, where 
Great Queen Street now is, and in the interme¬ 
diate fields reaching to the boundaries described. 
A different scene now began to develope itself, 
and at the commencement of the reign of James 
I. these pastures began to be covered with 
buildings. In 1606 Great Queen Street was 
begun, and Drury Lane,* which had hitherto 

* Drury Lane derived its name from the knightly family of 
the Druries, who, before the reign of Henry VIII. were 
settled at Drury Place, near the bottom of the Lane, in the 
grounds now occupied by Craven Buildings and the Olympic 
Theatre. In a statute of 34th and 35th of that king, for 
mending the roads “ without Temple Bar,” the way leading 
to Clement’s Inn and New Inn Gates and to Drury Place, and 
also one little lane (probably the present Holiwell Street), 

stretching from the said way to the sign of the Bell at Drury 



45 


been a country lane or road to the Strand, be¬ 
came built on the east-side, so that by an as¬ 
sessment made in 1623, the whole number of 
houses rated amounted to 897, and upwards of 
twenty courts, yards, and alleys are mentioned 
by name ; a considerable accession since Ed¬ 
ward the VI.’s reign, when the housling* * people 
amounted to 305 only. On the north-side of 

Lane end,” is described “ as very foul and full of pits and 
sloughs.” Pennant believed Drury House to have been built 
in Elizabeth’s reign by Sir William Drury, Knight, an able 
commander in the Irish wars, who “ fell in a duel witlr Sir 
John Burroughs, in a foolish quarrel about precedency ; and 
whose son, Sir Robert, being a great patron of Dr. Donne, 
assigned to him appartments in this mansion.” 

This house was the rendezvous of the associates of the Earl 
of Essex in 1600, whose residence at the north-west side of 
Essex Street, the site of the present Unitarian chapel, ex¬ 
tending to Devereux Court, and southwards its gardens and 
offices reached the Thames, rendered it a convenient place of 
resort for them, and which ended in the public execution of 
the Earl, Sir Christopher Blunt, Sir Charles Davers, Sir 
Geliy Merrick, and Henry Cuffe. (See Bray ley and State 
Trials.) 

* “ Housling people” is a phrase of doubtful import in the 
present day, the first word being obsolete. Shakspeare, it is 
well known, causes the Ghost in Hamlet to say, 

“ Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother’s hand, 

Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatched : 

Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin, 

UnhouselV d ”— 

Which has been rendered, the not taking the sacrament. If 
this be a correct definition, the number here mentioned formed 
but a small proportion of the population, inasmuch as many, 
from a variety of circumstances, were not qualified or allowed to 
partake of that sacred rite. 



46 


St. Giles's Street 100 houses were soon after 
added, and on the south-side of Holborn 71. 
Also in Drury Lane and the adjacent neighbour¬ 
hood, on the west-side 56 residences are 
named, supposed to be first-rate chiefly, to which 
may be added 15 in the whole in Great Queen 
Street, and at Holborn end 10 were assessed. 
In Bloomsbury 136 were now built, making a 
total of 1285. 

These are the amount stated as erected in 
the principal thoroughfares, and will afford an 
idea of the increase in other parts of the parish 
not assessed. 

“ The accession of James I. was quickly fol¬ 
lowed by a destructive plague, the spreading 
of which, there can be no doubt, was highly 
accelerated by the narrowness of the streets, 
and the crowded state of the houses; yet every 
extension of the suburbs seems about this period 
to have been resisted by successive administra¬ 
tions, with a pertinacious obstinacy, for which 
at the present time we know not how to ac¬ 
count.”* Proclamation followed proclamation, 
restricting the proprietors of decayed dwelling 
houses and other premises, in re-building 
to the identical limits formerly occupied ; and 
all edifices reared in the city or suburbs, con¬ 
trary to the tenor of the proclamation, were 
ordered to be demolished. In defiance, how- 


* Survey of London, p. 329. 






47 


ever, of these prohibiting restraints, the metro¬ 
polis increased, although the delinquents were 
prosecuted and fined, the building speculation 
continued, till it became necessary, in conse¬ 
quence of the rapid decay of wooden struc¬ 
tures, and the vast consumption of timber, to 
order, that in future the outer walls, fore-fronts, 
and windows of all edifices should be either of 
brick or stone.* 

“ The principal ground on which recourse 
this restraining policy was the danger of pes-^ 
tilence, and notwithstanding the continued in¬ 
junctions for the “ voiding of inmates” from 
the capital, it is most certain that if London 
was at any time “ overthronged with inhabi¬ 
tants it appears rather to have had its popula¬ 
tion decreased by pestilential diseases, than 
spread over a wider district by royal and civic 
precaution.” 

“ During the whole of Queen Elizabeth’s 
reign industry had progressed to a considerable 
degree, and the working classes had greatly 
augmented by the multitudes redeemed by the 
Reformation, from the idleness of the cloister.” 
When her successor James came to the throne, 
many of his countrymen flocked with him to 

* Lilly's Seulplura informs us that the Earl of Arundel 
was the first who brought over from Italy the new way of 
building with bricks, which tended to the safety of the city 
and the preservation of the wood of the nation. This was in 
Charles the I/s reign. 



48 


the metropolis, so that these concurrent causes 
tended to add greatly to its population and 
consequent extension. During the first ten 
years of Charles I. building went on with 
spirit; but the disastrous wars which followed 
produced a total suspension until the Common¬ 
wealth was established, when it was again 
checked by a parliamentary ordinance. 

During the Interregnum the buildings in our 
district did not much increase, except that the 
chief streets were gradually completed, the 
same state policy of Elizabeth and James being 
again enforced. An act passed in 1657, had for 
its object the restraining such speculations, 
enacting “ that every house-building, out-house, 
or other building erected within the suburbs 
after 1620, not having four acres of land at 
least therewith used, there should be paid to 
the Commonwealth one full year’s rent; and all 
who built after this a house or cottage upon a 
new foundation within the said suburbs, or 
within ten miles thereof, should forfeit £100, and 
every person that should uphold the same was 
to be subjected to the fine of £20 for every month 
that such building should remain standing.” 

The augmentation of the capital on the set¬ 
tlement of the Commonwealth appears to have 
advanced with accelerated rapidity, which fact 
we gather from the preamble of the act referred 
to, which runs thus “ Whereas the great and 


49 


excessive number of houses, edifices, out-houses*, 
and cottages, erected and new-built in and about 
the suburbs of the City of London* and the 
parts thereunto adjoyning, is found to be very 
mischievous and inconvenient, and a great annoy¬ 
ance and nuisance to the Commonwealth; and 
whereas, notwithstanding divers prohibitions 
heretofore had and made to the contrary, yet 
the said growing evil is of late so much multiplied 
and encreased, that there is a necessity of taking 
some further and speedy course for the redress 
thereof The act then proceeds to state, that by 
the law the said houses and nuisances ought to 
be abated, that is, removed or pulled down; 
and the builders, occupiers, and tenants thereof, 
ought to make fines for the same; so that if the 
severity of the law should be inflicted, it would 
tend to the undoing of divers persons who have 
laid all, or a great part of their estates in such 
new buildings.” From this consideration, there¬ 
fore, it was enacted, that one year’s rent, or 
year’s value, at the full and improved yearly 
value of such dwelling-house, out-house, and 
other building built and continued upon any 
new foundation within the city of London, or 
in any other place or places within ten miles of 
the walls of the said city, since the 25th March, 
1620, and not having four acres of land, at 
least, according to the statute or ordinance, 

E 


50 


Dc Terris memurandis, should be paid for the 
use of the Commonwealth, in full satisfaction 
and discharge of all fines, forfeitures, and pe¬ 
nalties incurred by the said builders, &c.” 

“ Among the exemptions from these for¬ 
feitures which concern the metropolis were 
William, Earl of Bedford and his brothers, John 
and Edward Russell, the sons of Francis the 
late Earl, who were allowed £7,000 out of the fines 
payable by them in respect of the buildings in 
Covent Garden parish. This considerable re¬ 
mission evinced that this neighbourhood was 
now greatly advanced. About this time also 
Long Acre was built on an extensive field, which 
had previously borne the name of the Seven 
Acres.” 

It is also on record, that James Cooper, Robert 
Henley, and Francis Finch, Esquires, and other 
owners of certain parcels of ground in the fields, 
commonly called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, were 
exempted from forfeits or penalties, in regard 
to any new building they might erect on three 
sides of the said fields, previous to the 1st of 
October, 1659, provided that the said named 
persons paid for the public service one full 
year’s value for every such house within one 
month of its erection; and provided that they 
conveyed the residue of the said fields to the 
society of Lincoln’s Inn, for laying the same 


51 


into walks for common use and business, where¬ 
by the great annoyances which formerly have 
been in the said fields* will be taken away, and 
passengers there, for the future, better secured. 

Thus we see, with surprise, the frequent re¬ 
strictions upon the enterprise of builders en¬ 
forced, by pains and penalties, upon the most 
mistaken principles of legislation and philoso¬ 
phy, during a period of nearly eighty years; 
and yet, with all these impolitic restraints, the 
British Capital grew expansively to an amazing 
degree. But this spirit of our ancestors, thus 
excited, sinks into insignificence when com¬ 
pared with what has been effected since that 
eventful period, and they would contemplate 
their former opinions with compunctious as¬ 
tonishment, could they behold the stupendous 
work of extension in buildings at the present 


* Faithorne’s plan, published 165S, exhibits no traces of 
houses on the north, except a single one called the gaming 
house, in Piccadilly. Windmill Stieet, standing in a field on 
the north side, points out the etymology of its present name. 
The Hay market and Hedge Lane are to be seen literally as 
lanes bounded -by hedges, and all beyond was one entire 
country; and even in Charles II/s reign, we find the Judges, 
on the first day of term, stopping to breakfast at the village 
of Charing. A great fete being given at the summer house, 
called Spring Gardens , the flirting of the Duchess of Shrews¬ 
bury occasioned a duel, in which two of the combatants were 
killed. 

E 2 



52 


day, unaccompanied by the baneful conse¬ 
quences which they anticipated.* 

At the restoration, a new and grand era 
commenced in building, and Lincoln’s Inn 
Fields assumed an appearance of magnificence, 
having arisen under the auspices of the masterly 
hand of Inigo Jones. These fields had long 
been the resort of the disorderly, and were 
known by the appellation of Ficket’s Fields; and 
it appears there had been houses erected there. 


* Captain John Graunt, who was the first English writer 
who turned his attention to political arithmetic, published a 
book at this period called Observations made upon the Bills 
of Mortality/’ in which he says, “ London is, perhaps, a head 
too big for the body, and possibly too strong; that this head 
grows three times as big as the body to which it belongs; that 
our parishes are grown madly disproportionate; that our 
temples are not suitable to our religion; that the trade and 
very city of London removes westward ; that the walled city 
is but a fifth of the whole pyle; that the old streets are unfit 
for the present frequency of coaches; and that the passage of 
Ludgate is a throat too straight for the body.” 

In illustrating these ideas, he states, that u the encrease of 
the ninety-seven parishes within the walls, was scarcely discern- 
able, but of the out parishes, then called ten, formerly nine, and 
before that eight, St. Giles’s and St. Marlin’s in the Fields, 
were most encreased, notwithstanding St. Paul’s Covent 
Garden had been taken out of them both.” He adds, “when 
Ludgate was the only western gate of the city, little building 
was westward thereof; but when Holbourn began to encrease, 
New-gate was made, but now both these gates are not suffici¬ 
ent for the communication between the walled city and its 
enlarged western suburbs, as daily appears by the intolerable 
stops and embaresses of coaches near both these gates, espe¬ 
cially Ludgate.” 



r> 3 


about 1609. The privy council at that time, at 
the desire of the benchers and students of Lin¬ 
coln’s Inn, directed a mandate to certain magis¬ 
trates of the County of Middlesex, stating that 
it was the king’s express pleasure and com¬ 
mandment, that the erection of new buildings 
“ should be restrained,” and ordering the said 
justices to apprehend and commit to goal any 
who should be found so offending, and to take 
sureties of him or them, to appear before the 
privy council, to answer the charges. This 
curious mandate was not in force many years. 
The cause of its having been issued, may be 
partly seen from the special commission, bear¬ 
ing date 1618, and in which, after the most 
grossly false assumption, that more 'public works 
near and about London had been undertaken 
in the sixteen years of that reign than in ages 
heretofore, it was alleged, that the grounds 
called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, were much planted 
round with dwellings and lodgings of noblemen 
and gentlemen of quality, but at the same time 
were deformed by cottages and mean buildings, 
encroachments on the fields, and nuisances to 
the neighbourhood. Certain commissioners, 
therefore, who were the Lord Chancellor Bacon, 
the Earls of Worcester, Pembroke, and Arun¬ 
del, and other noblemen and gentlemen, were 
directed to reform these grievances, and ac¬ 
cording to their discretion to frame and reduce 


54 


those fields, both for sweetness, uniformity, and 
comeliness, into such walks, partitions, and other 
plottes, and in such sort, manner, and form, 
both for public health and pleasure, as should 
be drawn up, by way of map, by Inigo Jones, 
who was then Surveyor General of his Majesty’s 
works. Under the superintendance of this able 
architect, the present square of Lincoln’s Inn 
Fields was laid out, and the buildings were 
began, but many deviations were subsequently 
made in the original plan.* 

This square contains three sides of handsome 
houses, being bounded on the east, by the wall 
of the Inn gardens. The whole of it is in St. 
Giles’s parish, and is confessedly the largest 
square in the metropolis, being by a whimsical 
conceit of the celebrated architect, in extent 
equal to the base of the largest pyramid founded 
by Cheops, in Egypt,f which was built accord- 


♦ In Rymer’s Foedra, vol. 18, p. 67, is another commission, 
directed to the Earl of Arundel, Inigo Jones, and others, for 
the prevention of any building on new foundations, within two 
miles of the city of Loudon and palace at Westminster, and in 
the Strafford papers, are some letters of Mr. Gerrard published, 
which contain an account of proceedings under that commis¬ 
sion, under whose orders and authority twenty newly-erected 
houses in St. Martin’s Lane were entirely pulled down. 

f Walpole says “Lincoln’s Inn Square is laid out with 
regard to so trifling a circumstance, as to be of the exact 
dimensions of one of the pyramids. This would have been 
admired in those ages, when the keep of Kennilworth Castle 



55 


mg to Diodorous, 1050 years before Christ, and 
is 700 feet in length on each of its four sides, 
and 500 feet high. Had it been finished ac¬ 
cording to the plan laid down, it would have 
surpassed every modern square in London, as 
it is the most extensive in Europe, compris¬ 
ing, in its area, ten acres of land.* * 

We may remark, that as St. Giles’s parish 
contains the largest square, so it also may boast 
of the smallest, which is situate near it, namely, 
Prince’s Square, containing only one house ! It 
is situate in a little avenue, called also Prince’s 
Street, leading to Little Queen Street and Gate 
Street. 

The slip of ground between the north side of 
Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Holbourn, now occu¬ 
pied by the avenue called Whetstone’s Park, in 
the parish of St. Giles, is in old deeds named 
“ Le Spencer’s Lond,” and a deep ditch, which 
anciently divided it from those fields, and ex- 


was erected in the form of a horse fetter, and the Escurial in 
the siiape of St. Laurence's gridiron." 

* “ Bahington’s plot was concocted at Southampton house, 
Holborn, as it is called in the indictment, in the parish of St. 
Giles in the Fields, and at other places in the said parish. He 
and his accomplices, seven in all, were hanged, bowelled, aud 
quartered in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, on a stage, or scaffold of 
timber, strongly made for that purpose, even in the place where 
they used to meet, and to conferre of their traitorous purposes." 
See State Trials and Stowe. 



56 


tended nearly to Drury Lane, had the appro¬ 
priate designation of “ Spencers Dig.” On 
this ground, which, from lying waste, was fre¬ 
quently the scene of low dissipation, houses 
were first erected on the eastern part, by Mr. 
Whetstone, a vestry-man of St. Giles’s, and 
from him it obtained the name of Whetstone’s 
Park. On the other half, the houses were con¬ 
tinued by Mr. Phillips, and called Phillips’s 
Rents. Several of the courts communicating 
with Holborn were built about the same time, 
particularly Pargiter’s Court, by a person of 
that name, which is now called Feathers Court, 
from a neighbouring sign in Holborn. 

Gate Street, and Great and Little Turnstile, 
were, as their names imply, avenues leading into 
Lincoln’s Inn Fields.* Strype, in 1723, de- 


* Great and Little Turnstiles, both in this parish, are much 
frequented thoroughfares, the former a straight passage, the 
other a crooked alley,, derived their names from the turning 
stiles , which 200 years ago, stood at their respective ends 
next Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and which were so placed, both for 
the conveniency of foot passengers, and to prevent tlie straying 
of cattle, the fields being at that time used for pasturage. In 
Charles I.’s reign “ Europea Speculatum, or a View or Survey 
of the state of religion in the western part of the world,” a 
curious work by Sir Edwin Sandys, printed in quarto, 1637, 
was “sold by John Hatton, at the Turning stile in Meibom.’’ 
Also, the English Translations of Bishop Peter Camus’s 
“Admirable Events,” printed in quarto 1639, was “sold in 
Holborn in Turnstyle Lane.” 

Strype says, (anno 1638) “ Great Turnstile Alley is famous 
for shoe-makers, sempstresses, and milliners, for which it is of 



57 


scribes Whetstone Park, at the back of Holborn, 
as being noted for its once infamous and 
vicious inhabitants, which some years since 
were forced away ; and Butler, our inimitable 
satirist, has thus alluded to its profligacy:—• 

“ And make a brothel of a palace, 

Where harlots ply, as many tell us. 

Like brimstones in a Whetstone ale-house.” 

The early attention of the legislature, on the 
restoration of Charles II. was directed to the 
lighting and cleansing the streets, repairing the 
highways and sewers of the capital, the salutary 
effects of which were gradually communicated 
to our parish, and the novel exhibition of can¬ 
dles, or lights in lanthorns, was directed by the 
act to be hung out by every householder, from 
the time of its becoming dark, till nine every 
evening, from Michaelmas to Lady-day. 

The south side of Great Queen Street was 
now completed, which contained, with many 
other parts of the parish, various mansions of 
the nobility. Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, had 
been one of the first inhabitants of tips street, 


considerable trade, and well noted.” Its present occupants 
can hardly be classed, their trades being mostly different, as 
dealers in cutlery and hardware, and butchers, dress, bonnet, 
and glove-makers, a tobacconist, pastry-cook, fruiterer, &c. 
Little Turnstile is chiefly inhabited by brokers and petty 
chandlers. Near it is New Turnstile, built 1685, which has 
been lately thoroughly repaired, and is occupied by small 
shop-keepers 



58 


residing at the south side, near the east corner 
of Wild Street, where he died in 1648. The 
house is still standing, and is one of the fifteen 
built in the third year of James I. (1603.) This- 
spirit of building continued till the reign of 
Queen Anne; the marsh, and other portions of 
land belonging to the crown, being leased out 
for that purpose, and the injudicious restraints of 
former periods no longer continuing. 

In the sixth year of the reign of this princess* 
the whole parish, except the neighbourhood of 
Bedford Square, and part of Bloomsbury, be¬ 
came generally covered with houses, including 
St. Giles’s Street and Broad Street, from the 
Pound to Drury Lane,* on both sides, the south- 


* Drury Lane is now, when contrasted with its former state, 
an extraordinary instance of the change effected. In 
Aggas’s and Hogenburgh's plans of about 1570 and 1584, it 
is represented at the north end, as containing a cluster of farm 
and other houses, a cottage, and a blacksmith’s shop, and the- 
lane, in continuity to Drury Place, forms a separation from the 
fields by embankments of earth, something like those of 
Maiden Lane, Battle Bridge. It was in fact a country road to 
Drury Place, and the Strand, and its vicinage. It was anciently 
called via de Aldewy ch. “ Nearly opposite to Crown Buildings, 
is a low public house, bearing the sign of the Cock and Pye 
(being a contraction for the Cock and Magpie) which two 
centuries ago, was almost the only house in the eastern part 
of Drury Lane, except the mansion of the Druries. Hither 
the youths and maidens of the metropolis, who, in social revelry 
on May-day, threaded the jocund dance round the may-pole 
in the Strand, were accustomed to resort for cakes and ale, and 
other refreshments.” Pope, in his Dunciad, has immortalized 



59 


east side of Tottenham Court Road, Hog Lane, 
(now Crown Street) from the north end to the 
then Greyhound Tavern, seven streets diverging 
from the Seven Dials, and Castle Street, the 
east side of Drury Lane, south, to the Maid in 
the Moon Tavern, two doors south of the Horse¬ 
shoe Tavern, all inclusive, and all its west side 
to Princes Street, both sides of which were 
complete, thence to Wild Street end, north side 
of Duke Street, and on the south side to the 
Portuguese Ambassadors, to Lincoln’s Inn Fields, 
the three sides of which were completed, 
thence to Louches Buildings, now Portsmouth 
Street, to the Black Jack. The south side of 
Holbourn was finished, extending from St. 
Giles’s Broad Street to the Boot and Gridiron, 
a little east of Great Turnstile, and on the north 
side, two doors east of the Vine Tavern ; Kings- 
gate Street, both sides to Eagle Street, and to 


this neighbourhood, by naming it as the scene of the “high 
heroic games, devised by dullness to gladden her sons/’ 

“Amid the area wide they took their stand. 

Where the tall may-pole o’erlooked the Strand, 

But now piety and Anne ordain, 

A church collects the saints of Drury Lane.” 

Londiniana . 

Nell Gwynne is said to have been born in the Coal Yard; 
part of a passage leading out of Drury Lane to Hoi born. 
She is well known to have been a favourite mistress of Charles 
II. and from her sprang the Dukes of St. Albans. Whatever 
were her vices, she has the merit of first suggesting the found¬ 
ing Chelsea Hospital for superannuated soldiers. 



60 


the corner on the west side, and all King 
Street and Great Russell Street, to Tottenham 
Court Road. Such is the outline of the vast 
increase, including the intermediate spaces, not 
mentioned here, mostly effected during little 
more than a century! I purposely omit Blooms¬ 
bury, till I expressly treat on that portion of 
this parish, but I may here state, that towards 
the termination of Queen Anne’s reign, the 
whole district was calculated to comprise about 
3000 houses, being an addition of 2203 since 
the death of James I. 1624. 

In the early part of this vast increase of St. 
Giles’s parish, the south and east sides of the 
hospital site proceeded slowly. Mr. Abraham 
Speckart, and Mr. Breade, two eminent parish¬ 
ioners in the time of James and Charles I. had 
residences and grounds here, and afterwards 
Sir William Stiddolph; these seem to have 
been almost the only inhabitants on the spot. 
About the year 1697, the suburbs of the metro¬ 
polis were much increased, through the settle¬ 
ment of about 14,000 French protestants, who 
had fled from the bigoted intolerance of Lewis 
XIV. on his revocation of the edict of Nantz. 
Many hundreds of these refugees fixed their 
abode in the neighbourhood of Long Acre, the 
Seven Dials, Soho, &c.$ 


* The district thus named, was formerly known by the name 
of the Cock and Pie Fields, and noted for assemblages of 



61 


New Compton Street, when first formed, was 
denominated Stiddolph Street, after Sir Rich¬ 
ard Stiddolph : it afterwards changed its name 
from a demise of the whole adjoining marsh¬ 
land, made by CharlesII. to Sir Francis Compr 
ton, who built a continuation of Old Compton 
Street. All this, and the intermediate streets* 
formed part of the site of the hospital and 
grounds,* as did the west side of Monmouth 
Street, so named after the Duke of Monmouth > 
who was very popular at that period. 

The reigns of William III. and Queen Anne, 
were important periods for building, when the 

dissolute and idle persons. Here was also a large laystall for 
soil from the streets for many years. At length, in the reign 
of William III. a Mr. Neale took the ground to build upon, and 
completely metamorphosed this sink of filth and iniquity. 
Under the date of the 5th of October, 1694, Mr. Evelyn, in his 
Diary says, " I went to see the building near St. Gyles’s, 
where Seven Dials make a star from a doric pillar, placed in 
the middle of a circular area,” Said to be by Mr. Neale intro¬ 
ducer of the late lotteries, in imitation of Venice, now set up 
here, for himself twice and now once for the state.” The Doric 
pillar was afterwards surmounted by a clock, having seven 
dials, and hence the name by which this neighbourhood is 
known. This same Mr. Thomas Neale, took a large piece of 
ground on the north side of Piccadilly, of Sir Thomas Charges, 
agreeing to lay out o£T0,000 in building, but he did not do so, 
and Sir Walter, son of Sir Thomas, after great trouble, got the 
lease out of his hands. Clarges Street was subsequently built 
on the same plot of ground. Braijley’s Londiniana and Mal¬ 
colm's Lond, 

* In a scarce ground plan, published after the fire in 1666, 
the north side of the hospital site seems only to have been 
built on, the back or south side being all laid out as gardens. 




62 


metropolis greatly expanded, and especially 
towards the west. “ The distant villages,’' Mr. 
Brayley observes, “ as they had been of St. 
Martin’s and St. Giles in the Fields, were now 
incorporated with the capital, which began to 
stretch away towards the yet remote village of 
Mary-la-bonne. The increase was so abundant, 
that in the ninth year of Queen Anne, the legis¬ 
lature deemed it expedient to pass an act for the 
erection of Jifty new churches within the cities 
of London and Westminster, and their respective 
suburbs. By a statement laid before parlia¬ 
ment during the progress of the bill, it appeared 
that the metropolis and its suburbs contained, 
at that time, about 200,000 persons more than 
could be accommodated in churches and chapels 
belonging to the establishment.” 

As the buildings progressed, Bedford Square 
arose, from a cow yard, to its present magnifi¬ 
cent form, and has been the residence of several 
of our lord chancellors and judges during many 
years. This square, with its avenues and neigh¬ 
bouring streets, mostly in St. Giles’s, have 
been chiefly erected since 1778, comprising 
Caroline Street, Bedford Street, Tavistock 
Street, the east side of Tottenham Court Road, 
Store Street, Alfred place, North and South 
Crescents, Chenies Street, Thornhaugh and 
Gower Streets, &c. These erections, amounting 
to about 420 houses, have made a considerable 


G3 


addition, and are mostly of a genteel descrip¬ 
tion. 

The village of St. Giles has been celebrated 
for its early inns and houses of entertainment;* 
and as some account of them cannot fail to in¬ 
terest the lovers of antiquities, I shall notice 
a few of them here chiefly on the authority of 
Parton, and especially as illustrative of several 
particulars in this history. 

Croche House is said to have been one 
of the earliest inns in the parish, and is men¬ 
tioned in the hospital grants, by the name of 
“Le Croche Hose,” or the Crossed Stockings, 
the sign of which it bore. (This sign is still 
retained by the hosiers, and exhibits a red and 
white stocking crossed, after the manner of St. 
Andrew’s Cross.) 

It belonged to the hospital cook, anno 1300, 
who afterwards presented it to this establish¬ 
ment, and was situate opposite the present 
entrance to Monmouth Street, north end. It 
not being mentioned in the deed of exchange in 
Henry VIII.ths reign, leads to the supposition 
of its being destroyed, or that it had ceased to 
be known at that period. 

The Swan on the Hop was another house 
of entertainment, mentioned in a demise of the 
master and brothers to John de Potton and 


* See quotation from Stowe, p. 43. 



64 


wife* (34 Edward III.) in which it is called, 
“ Le Swan on le Hop,” and from the description 
therein, it must have stood eastward from 
Drury Lane end, and on the south side of Hol- 
born. Little else is known of it, it being also 
omitted in the deed of exchange. 

The White Hart. In the exchange, this 
inn is described as “ one messuage called the 
Whyte Hart, with eighteen acres of pasture to 
the same messuage belonging.” It stood On the 
north-east corner of Aldewych, or Holborn end 
of Drury Lane, and was an Inn as lately as 
1720. See View of London , 1708, and Strypes 
Stowe , in whose plan it is shewn under the name 
of the White Hart, 1720. In Aggas’s Plan, 
1560, the site of this inn is marked by a cluster 
of buildings, standing at the corner of Holborn 
and Drury Lane, surrounded on three sides by 
a wall. Attached to them is pasture land, 
which might be the eighteen acres described, 
being bounded on the west by Drury Lane, on 
the east, by the way now called Little Queen 
Street, and on the north by Holborn, from 
which last it appears fenced by an embank¬ 
ment. 

The court called White Hart Yard, where the 
inn stood, has been recently demolished, having 
been taken by Messrs. William and Edward 
Cleaver, who built thereon, and conditioned to 
widen the west end of Holborn fifteen feet, and 
the north end of Drury Lane seven. 


65 


Parton designates this as one of the greatest 
improvements, in public accommodations, that 
has taken place in these parishes for a century. 

The Rose. This and the Vine were enume¬ 
rated amongst the hospital possessions, in the 
exchange with Henry VIII. and are described 
to have then stood in the “ village of St. Giles. 5 ’ 
The Rose is mentioned in a deed in the time of 
Edward III. but not its situation; but by a 
deed of bargain and sale, dated 1567 (Charles 
II.'s reign) Edward Tooke conveyed to Luke 
Miller, “ all the tenements, with the yards, 
gardens, or backsides thereto belonging, situate 
in Lewkner’s Lane, in the parish of St. Giles, 
which said two tenements do abut on the tene¬ 
ment formerly known by the sign of the Rose, 
late in the tenure of Walter Gibbons. 55 Hence 
we may conjecture that it stood on the south 
side of Holborn, not far eastward from the White 
Hart. 

The Vine. The Vine was, till September, 
1816, a house of public accommodation, on the 
north side of Holborn, a little below the end of 
Kingsgate Street, and a few doors to the east. 
It was originally a complete roadside house, 
having nothing at its back but fields and coun¬ 
try.^ In some parish entries it is called “The 

* This house, mentioned in Doomsday Book, (see p. 2,) 
became a nuisance of the lewdest description, during many 
years previous to its demolition. The new erection comprised 
F 



Kingsgate Tavern,” probably from its standing 
near the king s-gate, or turnpike, at the entrance 
of the adjoining road. It was taken down 1817, 
and two houses were erected on its site. 

Toten, or Totten Hall, or as it is sometimes 
in ancient records termed “Totham Hall,” and 
from which Tottenham Court Road took its 
name, was formerly within the boundaries of 
St. Giles’s parish, as was also a considerable 
portion of the prebend of Totten Hall. It was 
in Henry III.’s reign the residence of William 
de Tottenhall, and was a mansion of eminence, 
as the court house, probably, of that manor. It 
is noticed as a house of entertainment in 1645, 
when the following entry occurs :—• 

1645. “ Received of Mr. Bringhurst, constable, 
which he had of Mrs. Stacye’s maid and others, 
for drinking at Tottenhall Court on the sabbath- 
day, xijd. a piece” .. <£G 3 0 

At this period, and from thence to the resto¬ 
ration, if a judgment may be formed from 
entries of similar fines, it was a place of much 
resort on Sundays for drinking, but little else 
is known of it. The Adam and Eve, Tottenham 


one house only, which was occupied, first, by a respectable 
timber merchant, (a Mr. Semple) and afterwards by Probert, 
the accomplice of the murderer Thurtell. Subsequently it 
has been divided into two dwellings, one of which is occupied 
by Mr. Easterby, and the other by Mr. Kleft. 




67 


Court Road, (or rather New Road,) is built on 
the spot, and part of the old building and a fine 
spring still remains there* 

The Maidenhead Inn was situate in Dyot 
Street at least as early as the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth, and formed then part of the estate of 
Lord Mountjoy. In the deeds of that period 
it is described as “one large tenement, called 
the Maidenhead, so thence divided into two 
tenements,” and during many years, the house 
at which the parish meetings were chiefly held. 

In Charles IL’s reign it mostly flourished, 
when the parish books frequently notice these 
meetings ; and at a later period, about 1700, it 
became a house much resorted to by mealmen 
and farmers. When it lost its respectable 
character is doubtful, but it is known to have 
been, during more than half a century, a liquor- 
shop and public-house of the vilest description, 
and the haunt of beggars and desperate charac¬ 
ters. It bore marks of having been a handsome 
house to the last, it having been demolished, 
together with a great part of the east side of 
Dyot Street, and the ground on which they 
stood has been converted into a stone-yard, 
under the direction of the paving-board, of 
which more notice will be taken hereafter. 

Turnstile Tavern. This was situate on 
the south side of Holborn, on the west side 
corner of the footpath leading into Lincolns 
r 2 


68 


Inn Fields, since called Great Turnstile, and is 
now a butchers shop. As a tavern, it was 
of great celebrity, and, by will, four pounds 
annuity was left issuing therefrom, and from an 
adjoining house, as an endowment to the alms¬ 
houses. This bequest was made by Anthony 
Bayley, a parishoner, in 1640 ; and there is a 
parish entry in 1693, which proves that it had 
then ceased from being a tavern. It is as 
follows:— 

** Received at the house, formerly the Turnstile 
Tavern, in clear rent, taxes allowed”. £3 6 6 

The Cock and Pve. This public-house 
stood, according to tradition, at the west corner 
of the marsh land, now the junction of Little 
St. Andrew Street. West Street, and Castle 
Street, and afterwards originated the name of 
Cock and Pye Fields, to the spot called the 
Seven Dials. The sign was the Cock only, to 
which, probably, the Magpie was afterwards 
added. 

According to ancient records, the district 
under our consideration comprised six divisions, 
which have been considered naturally formed, 
and it is essential to our history to notice them 
in detail, as illustrative of the progressive 
changes it has undergone at different periods. 
In pursuing this course, it is impossible to avoid 
some anticipations in regard to the Parish of 



69 


St. Giles, which we shall hereafter treat of 
more particularly. 

The First Division comprised the southern 
side of the hospital from Towris-end to Aldewych 
west with a lane which ran under the hospital 
walls denominated in old records Oldcstratc 
and Eldestrate , now Crown Street, being the 
great road from Tottenhall to Westminster: it 
contained the Marsh-land , or Merslade; Neiv- 
londe, and Aldewych; west Marshland , or LeMers¬ 
lade. The hospital occupied much of this tract, 
and the estates lay behind it, and compre¬ 
hended the whole of the ground by the Seven 
Dials and its neighburhood, it was a mere or 
lake probably at an early period, but certainly 
wet and marshy. 

Le Newelond , or Newland, probably separated 
the eastern end of Marsh-land from the west side 
of Aldewych , (Drury Lane) and derived its name 
from being newly drained (as conjectured) 
from the Marshlands, a continuation of which it 
anciently formed. 

Aldewych west comprised the land to a consi¬ 
derable extent on both sides of the via Aldewych , 
or Drury Lane, and in this division it compre¬ 
hended that on the west side, bounded by the 
via regia de Aldewych; on the east, Newland; on 
the west, the land of the Abbots of Westminster ; 
(Long Acre) on the south; and the Street of St. 
Giles on the north. 


70 


All this district remained mere pasture land 
till subsequent to the Dissolution, except a few 
scattered houses near the north end of Drury 
Lane, or Aidewych . About anno 1600, the 
whole north side of the hospital had given way 
to a row of houses, and in 1623, other houses 
were continued from Drury Lane to the east 
end of this row, amounting to forty-seven, ex¬ 
clusive of six courts or alleys branching from 
them into Aidewych west, all of which ground 
was, until now, unbuilt on. At Town s-end, which 
lay to the west of the church, there were now, 
including eleven in Rose and Crown Yard, on 
the same site forty-nine houses more. Middle - 
row , which is supposed to have stood near the 
Church, was well inhabited. Rose and Crown 
Yard , corner of Crown Street, was occupied 
by Mr. Alderman Bigge when the Church was 
built. It has been rebuilt, and is called Farmer's 
Rents , inhabited by very low people. 

Dudley Court , so named from the Duchess 
Dudley, is now become an obscure thorough¬ 
fare, inhabited also by low people. Lloyd's 
Court , the site of the hospital mansion, accord¬ 
ing to Maitland, and where Lord Lisle, Duchess 
Dudley, and Lord Wharton resided, was so 
named from the builder. Denmark Street runs 
into Hog Lane , or Crown Street: this was not 
entirely built on till after 1687. btedwell Street 
is spoken of by Strype as very ordinary for 


71 


buildings and inhabitants, as is Stacie Street r 
Kendrick Yard, Vinegar Yard , PhcenLv Street , 
&c. In his time they were mostly French, and 
of the poorer sort. Hog Lane r the Eldestrate of 
ancient deeds, is of the same date as Denmark 
Street. Hogarth has given a degree of cele¬ 
brity to this Street, and the adjoining Hog 
Lane, the scene of one of his sets of prints, 
called “ The Four Times of the Day.” 

Belton Street was erected in 1683, and from 
the age of the houses and other concurrent 
circumstances is but poorly inhabited, and has 
several courts branching therefrom, some of 
which are of antiquity. 

Bowl Yard and Canter's Alley , about where 
the brewery stands, at the north end of Belton 
Street, were first built on about 1623, the rest 
of the land about here being mostly cultivated 
ground, known by the name of the great gar¬ 
den, which name the ground now occupied as 
the Workhouse formerly bore, in a lease granted 
to Anthony Baskerfield, when it was described 
as enclosed with a brick wall. 

Short’s Gardens and Brownlow Street , with 
their neighbourhood, was garden groundin 1623, 
having only three houses, occupied by gar¬ 
deners, as mentioned in the assessments of that 
period. The northern side assumed the name 
of Shorts Gardens, from a mansion built there 
by Dudley Short, Esq. an eminent parishioner 


n 


in the reign of Charles II. with garden attached- 
The above street received its name from Sir 
John Brownlow, Bart, a parishioner in the same 
reign, whose house and garden also then stood 
there; and from the minutes of vestry it appears 
that a serious dispute occurred with St. Mar¬ 
tin’s parish in 1682, about the rates due on 
these premises, which was decided in favour of 
St. Giles’s parish. 

Monmouth Street, anciently called Le Lane, 
with Hog Lane or Crown Street, surrounded, 
the south and west sides of the hospital. It 
was so named in compliment to the unfortunate 
James, Duke of Monmouth, who had a house 
in the adjacent Soho Square, (called also Mon¬ 
mouth Square.) The custom of living in cellars 
is peculiar to this and some other parts of the 
parish; and here the superstitious practice of 
nailing horse-shoes on the door thresholds, to 
exclude the entrance of witches, is still retained. 
Every body knows it is noted for second-hand 
apparel. 

The Second Division is situate on the 
south side of the parish, and on the east side of 
Aldewych (Drury Lane.) It includes the ground 
now covered by Lewkners Lane, Parker Street , 
&c. as far as the back of Great Queen Street 
south, being bounded by Drury Lane west , 
Holborn north, and Little Queen Street east . 
In early times this division was separated into 


73 


nearly two equal parts by Spencer s Dig , or 
Ditch, which commenced at the entrance of 
Lewkner s Lane , and ran eastward as far as Hoi - 
born Bars . The part of land between the ditch 
and Holborn was then most inhabited. 

1623. The assessment for re-building the 
Church, mentions ten housekeepers in Aldewych 
east; and Philip Parker and family had a seat 
in Parker’s Lane ; and Sir Lewis Lewkner had 
another, with garden, in the lane which bears 
•his name; and these are the only parishioners 
who can be named with certainty as then 
resident here. The Rose Inn has been already 
spoken of. 

“ Lutners Lane , at the lower end of Newton 
Street , falls into Drury Lane , and is a very ordi¬ 
nary place : It is a corruption of the name of 
Lewkner .” Sir Roger L’Estrange called it a 
rendezvous and nursery for lewd women, but 
first resorted to by the roundheads. It is now 
called Charles Street . 

Parker's Lane runs from Drury Lane west, 
to Little Queen Street east. The Dutch Am¬ 
bassador had formerly stables and premises 
here. Newton Street and St. Thomas's Lane 
have nothing extraordinary appertaining to 
them. Little Queen Street is described by Strype 
as coming out of Great Queen Street , and from 
thence falling into Holborn, and being much 
pestered by coaches. Great Queen Street, which 


74 


bounds the division on the south, is a handsome 
and spacious street, built on the site of the 
common path which anciently separated Aide - 
wych Close from the northern division of Aide * 
wych, which extends to Holborn. Its south side 
was probably built in a straggling manner near 
the close of Elizabeth’s reign, from whence, no 
doubt, it was designated Queen Street , but its 
best houses were built for people of quality in 
James I.’s reign, under Inigo Jones, about the 
time he laid out Lincoln’s Inn Square. Powlet, 
Cherbury, and Conway houses were among 
them, and are still remaining. 

Freemasons Tavern is an elegant modern 
building, and one of the best conducted houses 
in town ; and has unquestionably, under the 
superintendance and guidance of Mr. Cuff, far 
more public dinners than any other tavern in 
town. The other courts about this spot and 
division, New Turnstile Alley , Monmouth Court r 
&c. are of little note. 

The Third Division. “ Campum de Alde- 
wych” or Oldwick Close. This comprised the 
site of the present West Street, Princes Street, 
and their neighbourhoods, being bounded north 
by Great Queen Street; south, by the back of 
Princes Street, part of Duke Street, &c.; west, by 
Drury Lane ; and east, by Lincolns Inn Fields . 
On the sale and dispersion of the hospital, this 
track of land came into the possession of the 


75 


Holford family, a descendant of which held it in 
the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. at the same 
period when Sir John Drury, Knight, held the 
north end, or St. Clement’s half. He left a 
sum of money to be paid to the poor of the 
parish annually, founded on some conscientious 
scruples on account of its having belonged to 
the hospital, a charitable foundation. Part of 
this land came into the possession of Sir Ed¬ 
ward Stradling and other persons about the 
beginning of the reign of Charles I. Houses 
had however been previously raised on the side 
next the highway, together with the play-house 
called the “ Cockpit Theatre .” Both sides of 
Princes Street also (which had been a path di¬ 
viding Aldewych Field , between the parishes of 
St. Giles and St. Clement’s Danes) had been 
built on as early as the latter end of the reign 
of Queen Elizabeth, or thereabout. The spot 
had then acquired the name of Oldwick Close , 
and had fourteen houses standing on its west 
side, or the east side of Drury Lane, as well as 
a second theatre called the Phoenix , which suc¬ 
ceeded the Cockpit , after it was destroyed in 
1617.* Oldivick Close , by a deed of 1629, 
containing two acres, enclosed on the north, 
towards Queen Street, with a ditch ; on the east, 
towards Lincoln’s Inn, with a common sewer; 

* This theatre stood in a court denominated Pitt Place, an 
avenue running out of Drury Lane to Wild Street. 



70 


on the south, with a ditch or fence dividing it 
from other parts of the same close; and on the 
west, towards the back of Drury Lane, with a 
ditch or mud wall. It was in the possession of 
Sir Edward Stradling in 1632, and the cele¬ 
brated Sir Kenelm Digby; and the former 
built on his part a large mansion and offices. 
There was a ditch and mud wall, or embank¬ 
ment, with a few scattered buildings on the 
Drury Lane side, among which were the Cockpit f 
and afterwards the Phoenix Theatres . 

Queen Street and Princes Street, with Weld 
Street , (now Wild Street,) are the principal 
streets erected on Oidwick Close . In the latter 
site, the respectable family of the Welds of Lut- 
worth Castle, and a magistrate, resided in alarge 
mansion. Hoi ford Court , now Stewart's Rents, 
is a thoroughfare from Drury Lane to Wild 
Street. 

The Fourth Division. South side, Fik- 
attesfield and Holborn Bars, This division in¬ 
cluded the whole of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and 
the streets, &c. in its vicinity, (forming part of 
St. Giles’s parish,) to the east and north, with 
the land next Holborn Bars, now Whetstones 
Park , &c. as far east and west as from ten 
houses beyond Turnstile to Little Queen Street, 
# with the half of Holborn on that side. 

Fikattesfeld , or Fickefs Field . This enclosure 
stood near the old Temple , of which it formed 


77 


part of the grounds previous to the removal of 
that foundation. It derived its names probably 
from some early proprietor, and was called also 
the Templars’ Field, from its having been in the 
possession of the Knights Templars, before the 
dissolution of that order. It was certainly laid 
out early as a walking place, and planted as far 
back as Edward III. (about 1376) when it was 
a common walking and sporting place for the 
clerks of the chancery, apprentices and stu¬ 
dents of the law, and citizens of London. Dur¬ 
ing the Interregnum, a petition was sent to 
parliament respecting these fields, in which it 
was shewn, that at that early period, one Roger 
Legit had privily laid and hid many iron engines 
called caltrappes in the trenches of Ticket's 
Fields, with a malicious intention to maim the 
said clerks and others, for which he was punish¬ 
ed by fine and imprisonment. This was recited 
to shew the right the students and others had to 
recreate themselves in these fields. 

Holborn, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
began to be built on; and Turnstile, in the as¬ 
sessment of 1623, is said to contain, on both 
sides, thirty one houses; and a “ Thorntons 
Alley ,” somewhere near the spot, has therein 
forty houses mentioned. ct Partridge AlleyT 
coming from Holborn to the back of the houses 
in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, now called Neivma?is 


18 


Row, is mentioned to have forty-nine houses, 
but no notice is taken of Little Queen Street, 
Princes Street, Turnstile Alley, 8$c. to the west¬ 
ward of Gate Street: they were probably 
not built. Whetstone Park was built in Charles 
II.’s time, and the whole site was covered with 
dwellings. 

Holborn was a highway of great publicity in 
the reigns of Henry II. and John. The village 
of Holbourn , being erected on the bank of the 
bourne or brook, extended itself gradually west¬ 
ward, and communicated its name to the long 
and spacious street which attaches it to St. 
Giles's Street, that part of it being distinguished 
by the denomination of High Holborn. 

The Fifth Division comprised the north 
side of the parish, or Bloomsbury west, and 
reached from Tottenham Court Road west, to 
Charlotte Street and Gower Street east, bounded 
north by St. Pancras parish, and south by St. 
Giles's Street. 

This northern district, in the early times of 
the hospital, formed two parts—the land belong¬ 
ing to the foundation, and the land called Ble~ 
mund's Land, and afterwards Blemundsbury: the 
first comprised the Pittannce Croft , or Hospital 
Close, and its adjoining land, and the latter of 
the present Bloomsbury. Their extent, length¬ 
ways, was from Tottenham Court Road west, to 
St. Andrew s, Holborn, parish east; and breadth- 


79 


ways, from St. Giles's Street and Holborn south, 
to the parish of St. Pancras north. 

The division we are treating of commenced 
westerly with the via de Tottenhall , and ran 
eastward to Russell's and Blemund's Land , its 
south and north sides being formed by St. Giles's 
High Street , and the prebend of Tottenhall. The 
following were its ancient estates :— 

Pittaunce Croft contained about sixteen acres, 
and was situate before the Hospital Gate , and 
formed principally the gardens of the master 
and brethren. The north side of St. Giles's 
Street , part of which is in that parish, was about 
100 feet deep from the road side, to the Pittaunce 
Croft Ditch. This slip of land and its con¬ 
tinuation eastward, was the most inhabited part 
of the village, as remotely as during the reigns 
of John and Henry III. when its houses had 
gardens extending to the ditch. 

East of Pittaunce Croft was mostly the pro* 
perty of Seman Russell , whose residence was 
there in an inclosure, some distance from the 
north side of St. Giles's Street, nearly in a direct 
line from Monmonth Street. 

In 1623 forty houses were assessed at the 
north-west end of St. Giles's Street. “ In Dix¬ 
on's Alley" twenty-one, and <( Eagle and Child 
Alley" thirty-seven. Bainbridge and Bucimdge 
Streets were built on the above sites prior to 
1672, and derive their names from their owners, 


80 


eminent parishioners in the reign of Charles II. 
(See Strype.) 

The former gentleman left a sum of money to 
build a gallery to the Church, the rents of which 
were to be applied towards the relief of the poor, 
which we shall notice hereafter. Church Street 
and Church Lane runs out of Bainbridge Street 
into Dyot Street , (now George Street) : these 
take their names from nearly facing the church, 
having an avenue to them from thence formerly 
through Bannisters Alley , which now forms 
Mr. Remnant’s timber yard. 

Near to the timber yard is the Hampshire 
Hog Yard. 

Dyot Street , now George Street, running from 
Great Russell Street to Broad Street , is the west 
boundary of Bloomsbury parish. It received its 
name from Richard Dyot, esquire, who resided 
upon the spot, and was a vestryman in the reign 
of Charles II. ; and it was inhabited, till within 
these few years, by his descendant, Philip Dyot, 
esquire. This street, and its contiguous neigh- 
hood on the west side, has been remarkable for 
poverty and depravity, being the general resort 
of Irish, and where they first colonized at an 
early period. 

Plumtree Street takes its name from Henry 
Plumtree, esquire, its builder, in 1686, or there¬ 
about. This spot, so designated in the demise 
to him from John Buggin, esquire, in that year. 


81 


“ The old town of St. Giles.” This street and its 
continuation, Charlotte Street , is of a respectable 
description, especially the latter. 

The Sixth Division. North side of the pa¬ 
rish. Bloomsbury east. This extends from 
Charlotte Street west, to the extremities of the 
parish east, and bounded north and south as 
above, including the remainder of the present 
parish of Bloomsbury. 

This division, with part of the fifth ditto, 
comprises the manor of Bloomsbury east and 
west. In the early part of the reign of Eliza- 
beth, Southampton House was the only building 
in this part of the manor. In James I.’s time, it 
is denominated a certain parcel of land called 
Bloomsbury , nor was it till 1623 that a neigh¬ 
bourhood began to accumulate both in the east 
and west parts. (For more on these divisions, see 
Partons History , §c.) 


Chapter III. 


St. Giles in the Fields noticed as a Parish — Anti¬ 
quity of > examined—Its three successive Churches 
—High Church Politics—Puritanical Spolia¬ 
tions—Curious Parish Memorandums , §c. 

Hitherto we have avoided treating on St. 
Giles as a Parish, a subject which comes next 
under our consideration, and a matter of no 
trifling importance to this History, involving, 
as it does, a question of much controversy. 

Newcourt, in his Repertorium, which is con¬ 
sidered a work of much research and corres¬ 
ponding authority, seems to be of opinion that 
it never was a parish till after the dissolution of 
the hospital. “ I find,” he says, “ no institution 
to any Church in this parish (St. Giles), till 
after the hospital was suppressed, which makes 
me conclude, that the church belonging to the 
hospital was the place to which the inhabitants 
of this parish did, in those days, resort to per¬ 
form their religious worship.”—“ The first in¬ 
stitution I find to this church as parochial and a 
rectory , was in the first year of Edward VI.’s 
reign, the 20th of April, 1547, at the presenta¬ 
tion of Sir Wimund Carew, as true and un- 


83 


doubted patron thereof; upon the death of whose 
clerk, William Rowlandson, (Bonner being 
Bishop of London) his successor was instituted 
November 8th, 1571, at the presentation of 
Queen Elizabeth, as true and undoubted pa¬ 
troness, from which time the advowson of this 
rectory hath continued all along in the Crown 
to this present.” 

On the founding of the hospital, it was very 
natural that a place of worship should be added 
to it; and Leland has established the fact by 
stating, that Matilda provided it with an oratory, 
but he says nothing of its church, nor of St. 
Giles as a parish, although he lived and wrote 
about the time of the suppression; and it is 
recorded of him, that he proposed the securing 
all the monastic manuscripts by placing them 
in the king’s library, which, unfortunately, was 
not acceeded to. In the charters extant, and 
especially in the deed for exchanging the hos¬ 
pital estates before quoted, St. Giles is called a 
village, and not a parish, the usual designation 
in all ancient and modern deeds, had it been so. 

If we revert to early authorities, the existence 
of a parish will appear very doubtful prior to 
1547, as the following inquiries will clearly 
shew:— 

1st. Doomsday Book, a record of the highest 
importance, is silent on the subject, nor does it, 
under the head Ossulveston, (Ossulston) even 

G 2 


84 


mention the name of St. Giles, or indicate a 
parish in that suburb situation—a proof of its 
non-existence in 1066. 

2nd. The valor of Pope Nicholas is a celebra¬ 
ted valuation of all the ecclesiastical benefices 
in England and Wales, taken in 1291, and re¬ 
corded the taxation of the tenths of all those 
preferments, and also regulated the exaction of 
the kings and popes, until the twenty-sixth 
year of Henry VIII.’s reign, when it was su¬ 
perseded by the Valor Ecclesiasticus . No men¬ 
tion whatever is made in the above record of the 
parish of St. Giles, although ample notice is 
taken therein of the whole archdeaconry of 
Middlesex, which is the ecclesiastical division 
to which it is appended. 

3rd. The Nona Rolls, records certain grants 
made in the fourteenth of Edward III. (dated 
twenty-sixth of January 1341) by the parlia¬ 
ment of that monarch, of the ninth lamb, the 
ninth fleece, and the ninth sheaf, and was 
taken by assessors and others, throughout 
twenty-seven counties. St. Giles and Blooms¬ 
bury are here mentioned; the latter as Bilu- 
mond, or Blemund, but under the designation 
of a soke or liberty only, and not as a parish; 
neither in the ancient grants of kings, popes, 
bishops, &c. is it so named. 

4th. The Charter of Henry II. confirming 
the institution of the hospital, states that it 


85 


was built “ Ubi Johannes bonaememoriafuit Capped 
lanus (When John of good memory was 
Chaplain.”*) This, instead of establishing the 
idea of a parish, tends to prove that St. Giles 
was a royal manor about the time of the con¬ 
quest, as has been before remarked, for not only 
did Matilda give to the hospital inmates a per¬ 
petual grant of it when she founded that charity, 
but she made them lords of the manor, and 
proprietors, under the crown, of the whole, or 
nearly so, of the soil. As a corroboration of 
these facts, it is well known that they held 
courts in their own jurisdiction, and exercised 
all the usual manorial rights. All payments of 
rent, and the various acknowledgments they 
were entitled to by their several grants, were 
made at the hospital court; and tenants holding, 
by service of bodily labour, and other servile 
tenures peculiar to that time, rendered them to 
the master, brethren, and sisters, as lords of the 
fee. In the ancient deeds now extant, we learn 
that nearly all the householders of the hospital 
domains lived under the master and paternity 
of that foundation, and were subject to them. 

All the charters down to Edward III. speak 
of St. Giles’s hospital without any allusion to a 
parish.f 


* See page 7. 

f The definition of the word parish, &c. has been generally 
admitted to bear the following construction. Parochial bounds 




86 


5 th. The confirmatory bull of Pope Alexander, 
in the reign of Henry III. only mentions this 
district as “ locum ipsum in quo fundamentum est 
ipsius hospitalis, cu gar dims et octis que adjacent eid 
hospitalis exparte australe et exp arte aquilonari.” 
(“The place where the said hospital is founded, 
with the gardens attached to the same, and eight 
acres of land which adjoin the said hospital on 
the south and on the north.”) 

Newcourt says, “ In the hospital of St. Giles 
was a chapel, wherein King Edward I. in the 
first year of his reign, 1272, founded a chauntry, 
(tis like for his father and ancestors) for which 
this hospital took yearly of the exchequer, for 
the maintenance of it, sixty shillings, and 
twenty shillings more at the hands of the sheriff 
of Surry;” and “I no where find this chapel 


having been long fixed by custom and settled usage, were 
sometimes found so extensive, as to render it inconvenient for 
remote hamlets to attend the church. It was therefore a 
practice to relieve and ease such inhabitants by building 
oratories, or chapels, in many such remote hamlets, in which a 
cappelane (chaplain) was sometimes endowed by the lord of 
the manor, who was generally maintained by a stipend from 
the parish priest, to whom all right and dues were reserved. 
These chapels, though endowed, were not parochial, but de¬ 
pendant on their mother churches, to whom all dues were paid 
of an ecclesiastical kind, except the portions of such endow¬ 
ments. The privilege of administering the sacrament, (espe¬ 
cially that of baptism) and the office of burial, were the proper 
rights and jurisdiction that made it no longer a dependant 
chapel of ease, but a separate parochial chapel. (Sec Jacob 
and others.) 



87 


charged with first fruits and tenths, but with 
procurations and synodals.” 

If, according to this writer, there was no in¬ 
stitution to St. Giles’s Church till 1547 , (and it 
would certainly appear from the register if it 
were so) it is a strong presumption that there 
could not have been an independant parish 
priest before that period ; the institution of the 
parish priest being positively necessary by the 
canon law, and was only to be dispensed with 
under particular circumstances; one of which 
was> when licences were granted to monks, or 
the ecclesiastical religious fraternities, to serve 
a parochial cure by themselves, by reason of 
the contiguity of the churches, or poverty of 
the houses; and this seems to have been the 
case in St. Giles,. It had no church or place of 
worship for the inhabitants of the manor but 
what was poor, and the advowson which was 
appendant to the manor and hospital, appears 
to have been purely donative, and conferred 
successively on one of their own fraternity. 

In this view we may account for a few soli¬ 
tary instances wherein St. Giles, at early peri¬ 
ods, has been denominated a parish, rather by 
reputation than otherwise, in the hospital deeds 
and other documents. 

In the reign of Henry III. it is recorded that 
“ a house and cutilage was granted by William 


88 


Thrillam, situate in St. Giles’s parish.” (No 
date.) 

Premises were granted to the hospital by- 
William Christemasse, a messuage and land, in 
the parish of St. Giles. (Date unknown,) 

A plot of land of hospital fee, in the parish 
of St. Giles. (Grantor and date unknown.) 

A curtilage, situate in the parish of St. Giles, 
a grant of William de Tottenhall. (Date un¬ 
known. 

Half an acre of land, See . in the parish of St. 
Giles, without the bars of Hole burn, a grant of 
Thomas Osgood. (Date unknown.) 

It is worthy of notice, that out of the number 
of ninety-two grants on record,* applicable to 
the hospital, known to be situate in St. Giles’s 
parish, none of them except the five enumerated 
are so described! This would not have been 
so had St. Giles been a regular parish, instead 
of one by reputation,—a distinction in law, 
which is evidently in point here* 

Out of ten anniversary obits, for which be¬ 
quests were given, only two individual donors 
(William Christmasse and John de Garderoba, 
anno 1200) mention the parish of St. Giles. 

But independant of other considerations, it 
should be observed, that the deeds referred to 


* The hospital estates lay in no less than sixty-three 
parishes and places, and yet the greater number were in its 
own parish, and in fact it owned the most part of it. 



89 


on this question are no longer in existence, 
none but copies remain, and we have noticed 
that those quoted are without dates, and even 
the kings’ reigns when the grants were made, 
are only known by probability. 

The result of our inquiries leads us therefore 
to the conclusion of Newcourt, as to the first 
institution of a parish, and that the hospital 
church was the place of religious worship for the 
inhabitants at an early period. 

It is conjectured that this church included 
that of the parish, and was divided by a screen, 
one portion of it being the resort of the inha¬ 
bitants, and the other that of the hospital in¬ 
mates ; but when it was erected is uncertain, 
but probably in the prosperous days of that 
institution; or it was an addition to the chapel, 
or oratory, which originally belonged to it. 
Although it was of no great magnitude, super¬ 
stition had furnished it with several divisions 
for altars and chapels, wherein different priests 
are said to have officiated, exclusive of others 
employed in the chantries and singing masses 
for the repose of the dead. From the Minutes of 
Vestry, we gather that it had a body and choir, 
or nave and chancel, a middle and side aisles: 
That the middle was divided by pillars and 
arches, above which arose walls, probably 
lighted by clerestory windows, called in the 
Minutes “ the mayne wall over the arches. 


00 


which wall ran the whole length of the church, 
or ranged through the church and chancel, into 
the crown of the arch, and the arches sprung 
from pillars extending also to an equal length.’’ 

From these several particulars Parton re¬ 
marks, “we may conclude that this first struc¬ 
ture was of some magnitude and beauty, though 
not of the largest class. Whether it was built 
with the round or pointed arch, is no where 
hinted at in the minutes from which we have 
quoted, otherwise we might have guesed at its 
general style of architecture; but if it was actually 
the church erected by Matilda, of which there 
seems no doubt, it must have been of that kind 
usually termed Norman. After the dissolution 
of the hospital, the ancient partition walls, or 
screen, being removed, the whole church was 
formed into a parish church, and a new steeple 
was built with a ring of bells, to accommodate 
the parishioners.” 

The principal object on entering that division 
called the hospital church, must have been its 
high altar of St. Giles, which stood at its east 
end, and was probably adorned with the image 
of the patron saint: before this burnt a great 
taper called “St. Giles’s light,” towards which, 
about the year 1200, William Christemas be¬ 
queathed the annual sum of twelve-pence. 

The chapel of St. Michael and its altar, formed 
another prominent feature in the same building. 


91 


and had its own proper priest, or chaplain. 
These both belonged to that portion of the 
structure appropriated to the use of the infirm 
of the hospital, and which, as most convenient 
for that purpose, it is reasonable to conjecture, 
occupied the southern division or half of the 
church. 

The account of this church when it became 
entirely parochial is very meagre. The hospital 
church, or southern division of this fabric, became 
decayed with age and lay in rubbish, there be¬ 
ing a void space at the upper end of the chancel, 
which was stored with lumber, as the boards 
of coffins, &c. when Lady, afterwards Duchess 
Dudley, added the becoming ornament of a 
screen, which divided the nave from the choir, 
or chancel, at her own expense. 

From the Minutes of Vestry, 1617, four 
persons were appointed by vestry to inspect 
the account of Mr. Bigg concerning the charges 
of building the steeple and casting the new 
bells, when £125 : 19 : 5, due to him for money 
expended thereon, was ordered to be paid;* and 
at the next vestry, “ the upper churchwarden 
was ordered to be assistant to the late church¬ 
warden in the hanging of the said bells in the 
new steeple.” 

The church originally, before the erection of 


* This refers to the first minute extant. 



92 


this steeple, is conjectured to have had merely 
a small round bell tower, with a conical top at 
its western entrance ; and there was only one 
bell, the customary appendage of hospitals and 
religious houses. The parish becoming, how¬ 
ever, now more populous, a larger and more 
ornamental steeple was judged necessary, and 
was accordingly erected and furnished with 
additional bells, a full peal. Six years after¬ 
wards (viz. anno 1623), an order of vestry 
was made for pulling down “ divers parts of 
the said church, the same being ruinous and 
decayed; as also for the building and re-edifying 
of the same.” The preamble to this order states 
that “ whereas upon diligent view taken by 
men of skill, the walls of the north and south 
aisles, together with the main roof of the mid¬ 
dle aisle, and walls thereof, as well as all the 
pillars in the church and chancel, were found so 
rotten and decayed, as to be in manifest danger 
of falling down; it was by general consent 
agreed upon, that the said north and south 
aisles, together with the main roof of the middle 
aisle, should be wholly pulled down and re-edi- 
fyed with all convenient speed.” Another 
vestry was called after a second inspection, and 
the following minute was entered. 

“ That the parts of the church before deter¬ 
mined to be pulled down and rebuilt, viz. both 
the side aisles, and the mayn wall over the 


93 


arches ranging through the church and chancel, 
unto the crown of the church, and no further,” 
would be insufficient " the general pillars, as 
well within the chancel as within the church, 
being found to be so decayed and ruined in 
their very foundations, as by the opinion of 
surveyors and workmen, no further building 
might be raised upon them without imminent 
danger to the whole frame of the church. It 
was ordered that all the pillars, both in the 
church and chancel, should be wholly taken 
down and raised up again of free stone from 
the foundation to the crown of the arches.” 

Collectors were appointed to collect the 
money which should be assessed, and regula¬ 
tions agreed on for conducting the repairs, when 
they were found impracticable to execute, 
and finally the church and fabric was demo¬ 
lished. 

A petition was presented, stating the neces¬ 
sity of wholly re-building St. Giles’s church; 
the expense would, according to estimate, 
amount to £1500 more than the parish could 
raise, and humbly praying his majesty to re¬ 
commend to the right reverend the Bishop of 
London, to write to the clergy of his diocese 
to raise contributions in their respective pa¬ 
rishes for the finishing thereof; which the king, 
by an order dated at the court of Greenwich, 
9th of June, 1624, was pleased to do. In con- 


94 


sequence of this sanction, the Bishop (George 
Abbot*) by letter dated from his palace, Lon¬ 
don, on the 16th of the following July, directed 
his clergy to “ move their several congregations 
liberally to contribute all in their power towards 
so good a work, and the rather to do it with all 
expedition, for that the winter coming on, the 
parishioners (to the number of two thousand 
souls) would be utterly destitute and deprived 
of spiritual comfort.” The preamble of this 
letter states, “ that through the injury of time 
and weather, as also for want of due reparation 
in ages past, there had a general wrack befallen 
the ancient parish church of St. Giles in the 
Fields, where not only the roofe and walls of 
the said church, but also the arches and pillars 
throughout the church and chancell, were, upon 
view taken by men of skill, found to be so 
ruinous and decayed, that of necessity the 
whole structure of the same was to be, and had 
been pulled down and demolished to the very 
foundation ; for the re-edifying whereof, in part, 
the parishioners and inhabitants having strained 
their abilities beyond example, did nevertheless 
find that the work would much exceed their 

* I have here quoted Parton, but I find he was in an error 
as to the Bishop. Abbot had long ceased to be Bishop of 
London, having been promoted to Canterbury in 1611. King 
succeeded him in the metropolitan see, and on his dying iu 
1621, he was succeeded by George Mountain, who was in fact, 
Bishop of London at the time above alluded to. 




95 


power to finish, the charge of the whole being 
in estimate for the sum of £2,500,” and he 
concludes (after some further directions) with 
ordering that “ all monies collected should be 
entered in a vellum book to be provided by the 
parish of St. Giles for that purpose, as a per¬ 
petual memorial of the benevolence of each 
individual contributor.” This was accordingly 
done in a register still remaining, intitled, 
<f Liber Domus Dei Anglice,* or Doomes-day 
Booke.” This book, through the politeness of 
the vestry clerk, I have seen and perused, and 
I consider it a curious parish record. The title 
continues—“ Thesaurus caelij Reposit, Sive 
liber Dom Dei res memorata dignas paroehiam 
hanc Sci Egidij in campis, Et imprimis: Nu- 
pera templi hujus instaura eo’ em tangentes 
(breviter complectus.)” “ Treasure deposited 
in heaven, or the book of God’s house, of things 
worthy to be remembered in this parish of St. 
Giles-in-the Fields; and in the first place of 
the church now lately restored, some account 
touching the same.” 

It then gives an inscription commemorating 

* Doomsday Book, or Dorn Boc (the judicial book) a 
name applied to the inquisitions made by Alfred and William 
the Conqueror. It has been said to derive its name fr-om Domus 
Dei, from the church or cathedral of Winchester, in which 
Alfred’s survey was first deposited. It simply means, the 
Doom-book or Register, from whence judgment might be given 
iti the tenure of estates.— Kennel . 



96 


the great liberality of Lady Dudley towards 
the expense of the new church, which after¬ 
wards was engraved on a marble tablet, and 
fixed against the north gate of the churchyard. 


Surge re Caepit 
an 1623. 
Adumbelicos 
Peductu,1625. 
Mura undiquaq 
valutie 
1631. 


Quod Foelix Bonumque Sit 
Posteris 

Hoc Templum Loio Vetoris ex Annosa 
Vetustate 

Collapsi, Mola e f Splendorc Auctura 
Multo Paroecorum 
Charitas Instauravit 
Inquibus Pientissima Heroinac 
D. Alicia Duddeley 
Munificcntia Gratum Marmoris Hu jus 
Meretur Eloquiiun 

Huic etiam accessit benefica aliorum Quorundam 
Pietas 

Quibus Provisae in Coelo Sunt Grates. 


Heus ! Viator an 
effectum est 
bonis operibus 
Hoc Seculiuu ? 


TRANSLATION. 


The Building 
commenced 
Anno Domino 
1623 . 

Finisned in 
1625. 

And encom¬ 
passed with a 
wall in 1631. 


This Temple (may it be a blessing to posterity), 
was built in the place of a former one, which 
had fallen from the effects of time. But aug¬ 
mented in size and with greater splendour by the Say ! 

Christian beneficence of the parishioners, among Traveller! 
whom the munificence of the pious Lady Alice is this age bair- 
Dudley deserves the grateful tribute of this ren in works of 
marble. muuificence 1 

The pious contributions of some others whose 
reward is in heaven, aided the work. 


Various particulars are next given in regard to 
the collecting money for the church, the names 
of the contributors, the sums subscribed, with 
the treasurer and wardens appointed to overlook 
the progress of building the church, as fol¬ 
lows :— 

“ Money to re-build the present church, how 
collected and applied, namely, from the pa¬ 
rishioners and others, with the particulars of 
the collection made in the churches of this 
diocese towards this work.” 


07 


tf Names* of those who, during the time of 
re-building the present church and the vestry 
house, constitued the vestry. First, Roger 
Manway ring, D.D. chaplain to the most serene 
prince Charles, King of Great Britain, a man 
of probity of manners and singular condition, 
and treasurer for the money collected.” 

* “ A second book is among the parish records,” (Parton 
informs us), “ containing a further list of the names and resi¬ 
dences of every inhabitant, with the sums they were assessed 
at; to which is prefixed this notice, viz. * The inhabitants of the 
parrish of St. Gyles in the Fields in the countie of Middlesex, 
being at sundrie times warned and summoned both publiquelie 
at divine service by the parson, and particularlie at their bowses 
by the churchwardens and others of the parish, to assemble 
themselves for the ratinge and assessinge of themselves, and 
the rest of the said inhabitants, towardes the re-edifieinge and 
buildinge of ther church, being then fallen in parte, and judged 
necessarie to be wholly pulled downe, the charge whereof was 
estimated by the view and survey of skilful workemen, to be 
likelie to amount to the sum of .i 2,000 and upwards. Uppon 
the 23rd day (xxiij) of September, 1623, and upon severall 
daies after, the said parishioners did accordingly meete and 
assemble, and did rate and assesse themselves and the rest of 
the said inhabitants of the said parrish towardes raisinge of 
the same, as followeth.” 

Mr. Parton adds, “ N.B. This assessment was unauthorized 
by law. It was made and signed by many of the then princi¬ 
pal inhabitants, and contains the name of every individual 
inhabitant, as well householders and inmates, as servants, with 
such sums affixed against their names, as in the opinion of 
those signing the assessment, they respectively ought to pay 
towards the new church. But the payment or subscriptions 
were voluntary, at least optional. Some in their subscriptions 
exceeded the amount expected ; others gave not half the sum 
expected for them to pay, and many gave nothing.” (Parton 9 s 
St. Giles's Parish, p. 196.) 

H 



98 


The following names appear next in succes 
sion, forming the vestry of that period :— 


Sir William Seager, Knight, Garter, King at Arms. 
Lawrence Whitaker Zacherie Bethel 

Thomas Shepherd Hanns Claxton 

and Abraham Speckart, Esquires. 


Martin Basil 
Richard Bigge 
Humphrey Gardiner 
Nicholas Bragge 
Andrew Browne 
Robert Johnson 
Robert Hope 
Edward Rice 
Thomas Harvye 
Jeremy Turpin 
-Howland 


John Slid berry 
James Pert 
William Mew 
Andrew Robinson 
John Brewer 
Matthew Quier 
Richard Syer 
Jeremie Cocke 
William Chapman 
George Hope 
■- Jepp 


and William Edmondes. 

Edward Alleyn, alter Guardia optirn merita-oies et Singuli. 
Charles Robinson, Clericus Parochialis.* 


* In the progress of the suit pending between Mr. G. 
Rogers and the vestry, it became necessary, under a judge’s 
order, to examine the minutes of the vestry and other parish 
records, when it appearing that the above book was missing, 
the following advertisement for its discovery was inserted in 
the Examiner, 21st December, 1828. “ St. Giles in the 

Fields Parish Records.—Information is wanted as to the exis¬ 
tence of a Book of Record of this parish called Domesday 
Book. This book is of vellum or parchment, and was made in 
1624, by direction of the then Lord Bishop of London, as a 
perpetual parish record. It is repeatedly referred to in the 
parish books since that time, and can be proved to have been 
in the possession of Mr. Partou, the vestry clerk, in the year 
1821. Any person giving the requisite information for its 
production will be amply rewarded for his trouble, by applying 
to Mr. George Rogers, 58, High Street, St. Giles’s.” The book 
was afterwards found: Earle bad taken it away by mistake. 




99 


A second treasurer was afterwards appointed 
to assist Dr. Manwayring; and, in addition to the 
vestry, there was a committee formed, consist¬ 
ing of the two late churchwardens, two over¬ 
seers, and various gentlemen of respectability 
in the parish. An index of names of benefac¬ 
tors, who were parishioners of St. Giles’s at 
this time, follows, some of whom were persons 
of note, and in some instances some comment 
is added ; a few of them are here subjoined :— 

“ Parishioners , Contributors towards re-building the 
Church in 1623. 

£. s. d. 

The Right Hon. the Duchess of Lenox, her Grace 40 0 0 
Lawrence Whytaker, Esq. one of the surveighors 
of the said church, besides his great care and 
pains, and solicitac’on of his friends and ac¬ 


quaintance. 25 10 0 

Abraham Speckart, Esq. (besides his extraordinay 
care and paines in soliciting and procuring from 
his friends and acquaintance above the sum of 

«£200) . 23 6 8 

Mr. Jeremy Cocke, of the Prince’s councell. 10 0 0 

Dr. Roger Manwayring, Rector of the said parish, 
besides his exceeding labour and paines, both 

in the pulpitt and with his friends abroade. 7 4 0 

Sir Anthony Ashelye, Knight. 10 0 0 

Sir John Cotton, Knight. 10 0 0 

The Lady Ann Duddelye. 6 0 0 

The Lady Frances Duddelye . 4 0 0 

The Hon. the Lady Alice Duddelye, besides the 
paving of the church and chauncell with free¬ 
stone, the charge whereof appeareth in the end 

of the booke .. 250 0 0 

The plaiers of the Cockpitt Plaiehouse . 20 0 0 

H 2 


i r 












IDO 


The whole collection thus made was £1065: 
Os., which sum, Parton says, was subscribed 
by 415 householders, exclusively of inmates; 
and among whom are persons of almost every 
rank in life. The first donation entered in the 
book is £250 by Duchess Duddelye,* the last 
is two pence given by “ mother Parker!” 

“ The total number of souls,” he adds, “ in 
the parish did not exceed, perhaps not reach 
2,000. The subscriptions, therefore, upon an 
average, exceeded 10s. 6d. for each parishioner, 
old and young, at a time when that sum was 

* Dr. Boreman, in her funeral sermon, says, “ Besides all 
this she was at the charge of paving the upper end of the 
church with marble stones , and gave the great bell in the 
steeple, which as oft at it rings sounds her praise ; and was at 
the charge of casting and hanging the other five bells.” In 
addition to these acts of munificence, she caused great part 
of the ancient wall surrounding the church, which had become 
ruinous (and had belonged to the hospital), to be re-edified. 
Her gifts of plate and church ornaments were, the communion 
plate in silver and gilt, as large and rich as any in the city 
or suburbs; for the back of the altar, a rich green velvet 
cloth with three letters of gold, I.H.S. embroidered on it. 
Item, two service books in folio, embossed with gold; a green 
velvet cloth with a rich deep gold fringe, to cover the alter 
over with on Sundays. Item, a cambrick altar cloth, with a 
deep bone lace round about; another fine damask altar cloth ; 
two cushings (cushions) for the altar, richly embroidered with 
gold ; a large Turkey carpet, to be spread in the week over 
it; and likewise, very costly handsome rails to guard the altar 
or Lord’s table from profane uses.”— Dr. Boreman y s Sermon. 
We may remark here, that however laudable the beneficence 
of this estimable lady, it appears extremely trifling in the 
divine to enumerate these church trappings so much in detail 
in his sermon. 



101 


equal to forty shillings of our present money:— 
an example of liberality and munificence rarely 
equalled! 1” 

£. s. d. 

The second class of benefactors consisted of per¬ 
sons not resident in St. Giles’s parish; from 106 

of whom was collected the sum of... 455 10 2 

The third class of donations consisted of gifts 
from various parishes in the diocese of London, 


there particularized, amounting collectively to 236 19 1 

Add contributions of the parishioners.1065 9 0 

Ditto ditto strangers... 455 10 2 

Ditto ditto collected at the church . 44 10 2 

Received oute of the box there . 4 II 9 

Ditto for ould materials, and <£200 borrowed on 

interest.*... 209 11 6 

The vestry advanced a farther advance of ......... 51 14 8 


The whole expense of building was.<£2,068 7 2 


The church was not consecrated until 26th 
of January, 1630, although it was finished, ac¬ 
cording to Maitland, after the demolition of the 
little old church (as he calls it) in 1623, in 
two years, namely in 1625, and this is con¬ 
firmed by the inscription referred to in page 
96. A consecration generally precedes divine 
service, or opening a church, as it is called : 
one is a little surprised by so long a lapse be¬ 
fore that ceremony was administered, nearly 
five years. That the church was used by the 
parishioners is evident, inasmuch as Dr. Man¬ 
wayring is known to have preached three ob- 











102 


noxious sermons in it, two of them entitled 
“ Religion and Allegiance,” and the third. 
May 4th, 1628, in which he defended them in 
his parish church of St. Giles in the Fields. 
These sermons were deemed highly offensive, 
and he was in consequence fined and suspended 
from his clerical functions.* 


* Fuller, in bis Church History, says, “ This charge against 
Manway ring was made by Pym, 9th of June, 1628, purport¬ 
ing that he had persuaded the subjects of the realm to obey 
illegal commands on pain of damnation, That like Guy Faux 
and his fellows, he sought to blow-up parliament, and its 
power, making up a mischievous plot to alter and subvert the 
government, &c.” 

“ June 20th, 1628, he came to the house, and on his knees 
submitted himself with sorrow of heart and true repentance 
for the errors aud indiscretions he had been guilty of, in 
preaching two sermons, which he calls ‘ Religion and Allegi¬ 
ance/ and his fault in rashly, scandalously, and unadvisedly 
handling the same in his parish church of St. Giles in the 
Fields, on the 4th day of May. He farther acknowledged 
these three sermons to be full of dangerous passages and as¬ 
persions; after which he craved pardon of God and the King.” 
Fuller adds, “ that he was afterwards promoted to the Deanery 
of Winchester, and finally to the Bishoprick of St. Davids.” 

Hume, who has been censured for his adherence to the 
Stuarts, has given us the following candid sentiments on this 
affair:—“ There is nothing which tends more to excuse, if not 
to justify, the extreme rigour of the Commons towards Charles 
I. than his open encouragement and avowal of such general 
principles as were altogether incompatible with a limited go¬ 
vernment. Mauwayring had preached a sermon, which the 
Commons found, upon enquiry, to be printed by special com¬ 
mand of the King, and when this sermon was looked into, it 
contained doctrines subversive of all civil liberty. It taught, 
that though property was commonly lodged in the subject, 
yet whenever any exigency required supply, all property was 



103 


“ The new church being finished,” says 
Parton, “ 26th of January, 1630, was appointed 
for its consecretion.” Bishop Laud (of Lon*- 
don) performed the ceremony, and was enter- 

transferred to the sovereign; that the consent of parliament 
was not necessary for the imposition of taxes; and that the 
divine laws required compliance with every demand, how sin¬ 
gular soever, which the prince should make upon his subjects.” 

For these doctrines the Commons impeached Mauwayring, 
and the sentence pronounced upon him by the Peers was, “ that 
he should be imprisoned during the pleasure of the house, be 
fined ,£1000 to I he King, make submission and acknowledg¬ 
ment of his offence, be suspended during three years, be in¬ 
capable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity or secular office, 
and that his book be called in and burnt.” He adds, “ It may 
be worthy of notice, that no sooner was the session ended, than 
this man received a pardon, although he was so justly obnoxi¬ 
ous to both houses, and was promoted to a living of considerable 
value. Some years after he was raised to the see of St. Asaph.” 
At what period he became Rector of St. Giles is unknown. 
(See Newcourt’s Repertorium, and other ivriters.) 

The gross adulation of the clergy, and their subserviency to 
kingly power, was very conspicuous at this period of our his¬ 
tory. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, was a striking in¬ 
stance of this, and a fit precursor of Laud. His biographer 
gives us some sickening instances of his obsequiousness. He 
told James I. that he was zealous as David and wise as Solo¬ 
mon; religious as Josias; careful of spreading Christ’s gospel 
as Constantine the Great; just and meek as Moses ; undefiled 
in all his ways as Jehosaphat and Hezekiah ; full of clemency 
as TKeodosius,” &c. &c. He it was, who, on being asked 
whether a protestant king might assist the subject of a neigh¬ 
bour, labouring under tyranny and oppression, replied, “ No, 
for even tyranny is God’s authority.” Lord Clarendon, who 
was contemporary with him, tells us “ he was a man of very 
morose manners and a very sour aspect, which in that time 
was called gravity, and under the opinion of that virtue, and 
by the recommendation of the Earl of Dunbar, James the I/s 
favourite, he was promoted to the Bishoprick of Litchfield and 



104 


tained, at the parish expense, at Mr. Speckart’s 
house, adjoining the church. Two tables were 
provided to dine thirty-two persons in the 
whole, under the direction of a committee, and 
a subscription was entered into for the purpose 
of conducting this affair with splendour. The 
breach in the church-yard wall was fenced up with 
boards, the church made clean, the communion 
table adorned with the best damask table cloth, 
the green velvet cushion, and all the plate, the 
gift of Duchess Dudley, a rail was made to 
keep off the press of people from the west door, 
and a train of constables attended with bills 
and halberts (the appendages of that day), to 
maintain order; in short, the ceremony so long 
retarded, appears to have been very imposing.* * 

In the course of the following year, we learn 
from Strype, the wall of enclosure was com¬ 
pleted ; and by the vestry minutes, so early as 

Coventry, and presented afterwards to that of London, before 
he had been parson, vicar, or curate of any church in England, 
and was, in truth, totally ignorant of the true constitution of 
the Church of England, the state and interest of the clergy, as 
sufficiently appeared throughout the whole course of his life 
afterwards.” See History of the Rebellion, vol. 1 . page 38. 

* Laud, afterwards created Archbishop of Canterbury by 
Charles I. was the promoter of the following superstitions, 
and was supported in enforcing them by the authority of the 
king, viz. kneeling at the Sacrament—wearing the surplice— 
confirmation—keeping of saint’s da^s—and bowing at the altar. 
He also formed and compiled the Book of Sports ; and Charles 
and the bishops abolished preaching on Sundays, that the 
people might have more time to enjoy their diversions. 



105 


anno 1637, some decays in the new church 
were ordered to be repaired. 

The high church politics of this period had 
been exemplified in the doctrines inculcated by 
Dr. Manwayring ; whilst, on the other hand, 
there is little doubt of the reaction of the princi¬ 
ples of puritanism. Dr. Hey wood, the now rector 
of St. Giles, had been chaplain to Laud, Bishop 
of London, and being a favourite of his, it is proba¬ 
ble he imbibed some of his notions, which are 
known to have approached to the grossest 
superstition. In 1630 he was presented to this 
rectory, having been previously, like Dr. Man¬ 
wayring, chaplain to Charles I.; and in 1640 “a 
petition and articles” from the parishioners, 
was exhibited to parliament against him, which 
stated that “he had set up crucifixes and divers 
images of saints in his church, and likewise 
organs, with other confused music, &c. hinder¬ 
ing devotion, which were maintained to the 
great and needless charge of the parish.” In 
one of these articles, these “ popish reliques,” 
as they are termed, are enumerated, and appear 
to have consisted of the gifts of Lady Dudley 
principally. The beautiful screen given by her, 
(which is described as a beautiful skreene of 
carved wood, which was placed where the for¬ 
mer one in the old church stood) was described 
as particularly obnoxious. The description 
contained in the articles exhibited are worth 


106 


transcribing, as illustrative of the church and 
its ornaments at this junction. It stated that 
“ the said church is divided into three parts, 
the sanctum sanctorum being one of them, is 
separated from the chancel by a large skreene, 
in the figure of a beautiful gate, in which is 
carved two large pillars, and three large statues; 
on the one side is Paul with his sword, on the 
other, Barnabas with his book, and over them 
Peter with his keys. They are all set above 
with winged cherubims, and beneath supported 
with lions.” “ Seven or eight feet within this 
holy place is a raising by three steps, and from 
thence a long rail from one wall to the other, 
into which none must enter but the priests and 
sub-deacons. This place is covered before the 
altar with a fine wrought carpet; the altar 
doth stand close up to the wall on the east side, 
and a deske raised upon that with degrees of 
advancement. This deske is overlaid with a 
covering of purple velvet, which hath a great 
gold and silk fringe round about, and on this deske 
is placed two great books, wrought with needle 
work, in which are made the pictures of Christ, 
and the Virgin Mary with Christ in her armes, 
and these are placed on each side of the deske; 
and on this altar is a double covering, one of ta¬ 
pestry, and upon that a fine long lawne cloth, 
with a very rich bone lace. The walls are 
hanged round within the raile with silk taffia 


107 


eurtaines.” All the above ornaments being 
deemed popish and superstitious, were demo¬ 
lished and sold by an ordinance of parliament, 
with the reserve of the plate and great bell. An 
inventory being first taken of them, in which it 
was specified that the surpasses had been pre¬ 
viously given away. As a specimen of the 
temper of the times, it is on record what was 
the charge for defacing the organ loft, and dis¬ 
placing the fine painted glass window:— 


“1643. To the painter for washing the twelve 

Apostles off the organ loft,”. £0 4 6 

“ To the glazier for taking down the painted 
glasse in the chancel and church, and fitting-up 
new glasse,”. £1 9 6 


The following memorandum is appended to 
the accounts:—“ Also we, the auditors of this 
account, doe find that the accomptant, Edward 
Gerrard, was commanded by ordinance of par¬ 
liament, to take downe the screene in the chan¬ 
cell, it being found superstitious; which was 
accordingly done, and it sold for fortye shillings, 
and that fortye shillings, and with twenty that 
Mr. Cornish gave, and three pounds tenn shil¬ 
lings given by the accomptant, of their own 
proper monies, was given to the poore on 
Christmas eve following. 1664*—allowed by 
the auditors. Signed, Henry Cornish, Minister. 

Out of the receipts from the church goods, 
which sold for £17 : 7 : 1 were paid, “ the brick¬ 
layer for mending the walls on both sides the 




108 


chancell, where the same stood ; and, “ for the 
covenant and a frame to putt it in to hang upp 
in ye churchalso, “five shillings to Thomas 
Howard, pewterer, for a new bason, cut square 
on one side, to baptize in, more than the old 
bason came to.”* 

And April 8, 1645, “ it being agreed upon 
by the inhabitants, (not the vestry) on the 
choice of officers, that the blue velvet carpet, 
and taffitie blue curtains, that did formerly 
hang in the chancell, with the embroidered 
cushions, and two embroidered books, should 
be sold to the best advantage, and the money 
employed for the use and benefit of the church 
and parish.” They were sold accordingly; and 
the following year an order was made; that 
“ the railes that stood about the communion 
table, be sold to Major Walter Bigg,” 

In 1647 is this item. “ Paid for lyning the 
honourable Lady Dudley’s pew with green baise 
and other materials, two straw matts, and work¬ 
manship,” . .... <£3 2 0 

* It is evident on the whole, that the pomp and useless 
pageantry of the priesthood of this period, so remote from the 
primitive simplicity of Christianity, was carried by Laud and 
others to a dangerous extreme, and mainly contributed to the 
spoliations complained of. Among the innovations of the 
clergy, Hume relates that Cozens, dean of Peterborough, 
would not suffer the communicants to break the sacramental 
bread with their fingers, a privilege on which the puritans stren- 
ously insisted; nor would he permit it to be cut with ail ordi¬ 
nary knife, a consecrated one must perform that sacred office, 
never afterwards to be profaned by any vulgar service. 




109 


Parton considers this as an atonement to 
that lady, for the injustice of selling her gifts 
in her very presence, her house being adjoining 
the church. 

1650. The fall of royalty being complete, 
there appears an order for ‘‘putting out the 
king's arms,” probably those painted in the 
body of the church, and an entry is made to 
the glazier “for taking down the king’s arms,” 
(which appear to have been beautifully executed 
in stained glass in the south window, and was 
given by Sir William Segar) and new glazing 
the windows ;” which it appears was replaced 
by a sun dial; and it was ordered that (anno 
1654) the organ loft, where confused music had 
hindered devotion, should be let as a seat. 
Hume further tells us, “ that such was the zeal 
of Sir Robert Harley, under the. order of the 
Commons to destroy all images, altars, and 
crucifixes, that he demolished all crosses in the 
streets and markets; and, from his abhorrence of 
that superstitious figure, he would not allow 
one piece of wood or stone to lye over another 
at right angles 1” 

During the year 1643, Strype informs us, 
Alderman Pennington, being Lord Mayor of 
London, he ordered all the saints to be omitted 
in the designation of the churches, and the 
parishes became unsainted, a divorce sanction- 


110 


ed by parliament. This continued until the 
restoration, 1660. 

The joyful period of the restoration arrived, 
which was welcomed with such eagerness, that 
the ringers of this parish were paid for a merry 
peal of three days; and the kingdom became 
so intoxicated by the change, that nothing like 
a condition was exacted in favour of civil 
liberty, an omission much to be deplored, and 
which was productive of the worst consequen¬ 
ces : so much do men run from one extreme to 
another. 

In reference to our parish, the king’s arms in 
the vestry and the window were restored on 
the following year, and all the parochial regula¬ 
tions reverted to their usual former channels. 
Various memorandums appear in the minutes, 
in 1657 £10 was collected towards repairs of 
the church. In 1664, a petition was presented 
to the bishop of London for erecting galleries, 
for the better accommodation of the nobility 
coming to church. 

1670. The bishop’s seal for erecting gal¬ 
leries was applied for, and repairs were effected 
to the gate and steps of the church, now be¬ 
come defective; and a brass branch was ordered, 
containing sixteen candlesticks, and an hour 
glass for the pulpit, which was a usual ap¬ 
pendage at that day. 


Ill 


It would be useless to recite the particulars 
of the perpetual repairs required and practised 
upon this church, during the short term of 
ninety years, by which it is evident how badly 
this structure was erected. We have seen with 
what deficiency of foresight the hospital church 
was repaired, and a new steeple and bells added 
to it, at a considerable expense, a very few 
years prior to its being, from necessity, taken 
down and rebuilt; and we have seen that in the 
space of twelve years after this had been effect¬ 
ed, decays and consequent repairs are an¬ 
nounced in the vestry minutes, which were 
perpetuated during the short time of less than 
a century. In 1715 it was discovered that, 
notwithstanding the many reparations it had 
undergone, it had now arrived at a total state of 
decay, and was completely damp and unwhole¬ 
some, from the accumulation of earth around it, 
the church being rendered low thereby, and 
beneath the level of the street. It was there¬ 
fore determined by a resolution of the vestry, 
to take the opinion of the members of parlia¬ 
ment inhabiting the parish , concerning the 
petitioning to have the church entirely rebuilt 
at the public charge. A paper was drawn up, 
intitled, “ Reasons humbly offered for a bill to 
rebuild the parish church of St. Giles in the 
Fields, as one of the fifty new churches:” in 
which it was stated, “ that it was built with 


112 


bricks, and coined and coped with stone, was 
very old and ruinous, and upon a moderate 
computation, would cost £3,000 to put it into 
good repair and order. That the ground about 
it being higher than the floor, or body of the 
church, it lay lower than the street by eight feet 
at least, and thereby (and by the great number 
of burials within it) is become very damp and 
unwholesome, as well as inconvenient to the 
gentry and others, who were obliged to go 
down several steps to the church. That being 
built long since, it was ill-contrived for hearing, 
and in divers other respects; and that these 
inconveniences could only be remedied by an 
entire new building, and would remain still the 
same, though the church should be repaired by 
the inhabitants at the expense above men¬ 
tioned ; nor could it be thought proper (as was 
conceived) to lay out so great a sum in repair¬ 
ing a church under such circumstances.” It 
was further urged, “ that the church stood at 
the farthest end of that part of the town, and 
fronted St. Giles’s High Street, which was the 
great thoroughfare for all persons who travelled 
the Oxford or Hampstead Roads ; and a good 
church there, would be as great an ornament 
and as much exposed to view as any church 
which could be built in town. That St. Giles’s 
being one of the out parishes, and very large, 
was so overburthened with poor, that the ex- 


113 


pense of maintaining and relieving them, a* 
mounted communibus minis , to £3,300 at least, 
though their allowance was very small in pro¬ 
portion to other parishes, and the poor’s rate 
Was constantly fifteen-pence in the pound, 
besides six-pence to the scavenger, and the 
rates to the highways, windows, and lamps.’’ 
It was allowed^ “That there were several no¬ 
blemen and gentlemen in the parish; but if the 
church was to be repaired, or re-built at the 
parish charge, the rate must be laid on all, by 
a pound-rate, according to the rents of the 
houses, which would also fall so heavy on the 
trading and meaner sort of people, that it must 
very much impoverish, if not ruin many of the 
most industrious part of the parish, the number 
of tradesmen and poor inhabitants being above 
ten to one in proportion. 

“The nobility arid gentry, as Was repre¬ 
sented in 1711, by the then rector and vestry, 
upon an exact survey given to the commis¬ 
sioners for the new churches, in pursuance of 
an order from them to that purpose; and when 
the parish should be divided into two or more, 
on the building new churches, (one of which 
was then building) the inhabitants, who would 
in all probability be left to the old church, 
would be those that dwelt nearest to it, and 
they ajmost wholly tradesmen, or others of less 
substance; and then the expense of keeping so 

i 


114 


old and crazy a church in repair and decent order, 
and in due time of new building it, (which it must 
want in some years) being added to the other 
taxes of the parish, would be an unsupportable 
burthen to them, especially wh$n charged with 
the Iqss which would happen by sinking the 
rents of the pews in the galleries, now taken 
and used by the nobility and. gentry, who 
would then belong to other parishes and 
churches. That by making this one of the 
fifty new churches, the charge of purchasing a 
site for the church and churchyard, and also the 
maintainance for the minister, would be saved to 
the public, or if three or more of these churches 
were designed for the parish, (as was presumed) 
it would be very difficult, and even impossible, 
without giving extravagant prices, to find proper 
sites within this parish for more than two new 
churches; and if sites could be found, yet 
three churches in all were as many as were wanted, 
there being then but one church and two little 
chapels, and these sufficient. That this parish 
was already charged with a heavy quota to the 
land taxes, which obliges them every second or 
thirdy ear at furthest, to make a re-assessment of 
six-pence in the pound above the common pound-rate 
intended by parliament , although all the houses 
were taxed to the utmost of their rents and 
values, and no site for a new church and church¬ 
yard had, or could be bought in this parish. 


115 


where there was no waste or void ground\ with¬ 
out pulling down £200 a year in houses, which 
would still sink the land-tax, (as well as all 
other taxes) and raise the deficiencies and re¬ 
assessments.” 

I have quoted these reasons (some of which 
were futile enough) to elucidate the state and 
circumstances of the second church, the rates, 
&c. and also to bring into notice the then in¬ 
tention of dividing the district into three distinct 
parishes, on which I shall make some remarks 
hereafter. 

By an order of the vestry dated two years 
later, (1717) these “ Reasons” were ordered to 
be printed, and distributed among members of 
parliament and others who had interest with 
government; and in December the same year, 
it was agreed that Dr. Baker and Mr. Milner 
should prepare a petition to parliament, for 
appointing the church of this parish to be one 
of the fifty new churches. It recited principally 
the arguments contained in the “ Reasons,” and 
after encountering great opposition in the House 
of Lords, a Bill to the effect required passed into 
a law. The Duke of Newcastle and the Lord 
Chancellor, and other eminent parishioners, 
strenuously supported the Bill, and had after¬ 
wards the thanks of the parish voted to them 
for their exertions in its behalf. On the other 
hand, the Archbishop of York, and five bishops, 

i 2 


116 


with eleven temporal peers, protested strongly 
against the Bill.* 

Such, then, is the history of the measures 
adopted preparatory to the erection of the pre¬ 
sent church, which one would imagine was not 

* I here Insert the Protest at length, it containing some his¬ 
torical information of that period. 

1st. “Because it doth not appear to us, from any declaration 
in his Majesty's name to either hense of parliament, that his 
royal leave was given for bringing in the said Bill, as it ought." 

2nd. “ Because this Bill, in our opinion, manifestly tends to 
defeat the ends of two acts of parliament for building fifty new 
churches, and yet at the same time asserts that the intention 
of the said acts would be hereby answered." 

3rd. “ Because this Bill further asserts, that the parish of 
St. Giles is in no condition to raise, or pay the sum of .£3,000 
and upwards for the repairs of its parish church, which we 
apprehend to be evidently false in fact; aud if true, to be no 
reason for re-building the said church out of the fund given 
fqr building fifty new churches." 

4th. “ Because this Bill moreover asserts, that the said 
church, when re-built, and the church which is now building 
in the said parish, by virtue of the acts for building fifty new 
churches, will be sufficient for the inhabitants of the said 
parish ; whereas, we are credibly informed, and upon the best 
calculation do believe, that there are about 40,000 souls in the 
said parish, and do think that three new churches will be 
barely sufficient for that number." 

5th. “ Because, if this precedent of re-building old churches 
out of the fund appointed for building new ones, shonld be fol¬ 
lowed, and the ends of the aforesaid acts should be thereby in 
any great measure defeated, we are apprehensive that many 
thousands of his Majesty’s good subjects, in and about these 
populous cities, will be left unprovided for churches whereunto 
they may resort for the public worship of God, and will there¬ 
by remain destitute of the necessary means of being instructed 
in the true Christian religion, as it is now professed in the 
Church of England, and established by the laws of this 
realm." (Sec Parliamentary Reports.) 



117 


of such urgent necessity as was represented by its 
not being carried into immediate effect. Eleven 
years longer the old church remained in its state 
of ruin, when in 1729 a proposal was stated by 
the churchwardens and vestry of St. Giles, to 
settle £350 yearly on the rector of the new 
parish of Bloomsbury, provided the commis¬ 
sioners under that act would build their 
church, or allow them a sufficient sum for that 
purpose. 

This proposal was accepted, and a second act 
passed, by Virtue of which the commissioners 
were empowered to grant the sum of £8,000 
to be laid out in the said church, by trustees 
appointed (members 6f the vestry) for the 
management of the same.. 

In June, 1731, articles of agreement were 
entered into with Mr. Henry Flitcroft, archi¬ 
tect, who contracted to take down, by or 
before the ensuing first of August, the old 
church and steeple,, and to re-build on the 
same ground a new one, together with a sub¬ 
stantial vestry room, in a complete manner, on 
or before December 25, 1633. 

This was finally done, and the church was 
opened for divine service April 14, 1634, Doc¬ 
tor Galley being the then rector, and the sum 
of £8,436 : 19 : 6 was paid to the architect, as 
stated by receipt given.* 


* This structure has been much criticised and admired by 
architects and competent judges. Ralph, whose taste has 



113 


The area of this church within the walls is 
said to be seventy feet in length, by sixty feet 
in width, exclusive of the recess for the altar. 
The roof is supported by Ionic pillars of Port¬ 
land stone (of which the structure is built,) 
and there are vaults under the building. The 
steeple is 160 feet high, and consists of a rustic 
pedestal supporting a Doric order of pilasters, 
and over the clock is an octangular tower, with 
three-quarter Ionic columns, supporting a bal- 
lustrade with vases;—on this tower stands the 
spire, which is also octangular, and belled. 


been celebrated, notwithstanding his fastidiousness, and who 
wrote in 1736, speaking of this church, says, “ the new church 
of St. Giles is one of the most simple and elegant of the modern 
structures. It is raised at a very little expense, has very few 
ornaments, and little besides the propriety of its parts, and the 
harmony of the whole to excite attention, and to challenge 
applause, yet still it pleases, and justly too. The east end is 
both pleasing and majestic, and there is nothing in the west to 
object to, but the smallness of the doors, and the poverty of 
appearance that must necessarily follow. The steeple is light, 
airy, and genteel, argues a good deal of genius in the archi¬ 
tect, and looks very well, both in comparison with the body of 
the church, and when it is considered as a building by itself in 
a distant prospect.” He adds, “ yet after all I have confes¬ 
sed in favour of this edifice, I cannot help again arraigning the 
superstition of situating churches due east and west, for in 
complaisance to this folly, the building before us has lost a 
great advantage it might have otherwise enjoyed. I mean 
the making the east end the front, and placing it in such a 
manner as to have ended the vista of what is called Broad St. 
Giles’s; whereas, now, it is no where to be seen with ease to 
the eye, or so as justly to comprehend the symmetry and 
connexion of the wholes” 



110 


By a very ingenious application of gas, the 
clock is illuminated every evening, so as to 
render the hours and minutes visible on the 
darkest nights, a convenience introduced in 
1827, when its novelty and utility attracted 
crowds to visit it from the remotest parts of 
the metropolis.* 


* The following is a correct list of the rectors of St. Giles 
in the Fields, from the first institution by Sir WymondeCarew, 
to the present period, 1829, embracing a term of 282 years :— 

1. 1547. Sir William Rowlandson, presented by Sir Wy- 

monde Carew, in the first year of Edward VI. 

2. 1571. Geoffery Evans, presented by Queen Elizabeth, 

November 8, and resigned in 1579. 

3. 1579. William Steward, presented by Queen Elizabeth, 

August 3. 

4. 1590. Nathaniel Baxter, presented by Queen Elizabeth, 

resigned in about a year. 

5. 1591. Thomas Salisbury, presented by Queen Elizabeth, 

December 24. 

0. 1592. Joseph Clerke, A. M. September 16. 

7. Not known. Roger Manwaring, D. D. 

8. -- Gilbert Dillingham, died 1635. (Charles I.) 

Brian Walton, A. M. (Charles I.) resigned. 
William Hey wood, S.T. P. (Charles I.) 

Henry Cornish, till 1648. 

Arthur Molyne Clerk. 

Thomas Case, till the restoration, and was suc¬ 
ceeded by Dr. Heywood again. 

Robert Boreham, D. D. presented by Charles II. 
John Sharp, A. M. January 3, presented by ditto. 
John Scott, S. T. P. August 7. William and 


9. 1635. 

10. 1636. 

11. 1641. 

12. 1648. 

13. 1651. 

14. 1663. 

15. 1673. 

16. 1691. 

17. 1695. 

18. 1715. 

19. 1732. 

20. 1769. 


Mary. 

William Haley Clerk. 
William Baker, D. D. 
Henry Galley, D. D. 
John Smith, D. D. 
1773. 


April 4. 
October 7. 
December. 
George HE 


George I. 
George II. 
Died August, 




120 


I should here notice what Parton says of the 
churchyard, a spot rendered somewhat inte¬ 
resting by its being part of the site of the 
Hospital. 

“There is little doubt,” he remarks, “but this 
was in ancient times the place of interment of 
the hospital, as well as the parish ; but what 
was its precise extent does not appear. The 
first mention of it in the parish books occurs in 
1628, where it was agreed in vestry, that, 
whereas for many years, till of late time, there 
were standing upon the churchyard glebe 
certain cottages, to the number of three tene¬ 
ments, out of which there did issue a yearly 
rent due unto the parson in the right of his rec¬ 
tory, to the value of six pounds ten shillings 
yearly. And the said parson having agreed, 
upon intreaty made to him, that the said three 
cottages should be demolished, as well because 
they were an annoyance to the churchyard, as 
an hindrance to the burial ground, of which 
latter the parish stood in great need; the said 
vestry should consider a recompense answerable 
to such annual rent, as the said parson should 
lose, by the said tenements being removed.” 

21. 1796. Right Reverend John Buckner, L. L. D. Bishop 
of Chichester. 

2*3. 1824. Christopher Benson, A. M. 

23. 1826. James Endel Tyler, B. D. 

'^Thomas Magnus, immediately after the dissolution, is men¬ 
tioned as parson, with Lord Lisle’s licence to marry. 

2_/_j i /yvy. 



121 


A succeeding vestry agreed to compensate Doc¬ 
tor Manwayring with £34 per annum, instead of 
the annual rent received, and on the condition 
of his performing some additional pastoral 
duties. 

The old hospital wall in part remained till 
the above-named time, and it seems enclosed 
the north side of the churchyard ; but having in 
two years after, from age, fallen in partly, and 
become dangerous, an order was made in 1630 
“ that the workmen should view the ruins of the 
churchyard wall, lately fallen down y and consider 
whether the rest of the wall was not likely to 
fall,” and to make an estimate of the expense of 
taking it down, “ and new building a brick wall 
round about the churchyard, with the building 
in, and enclosure of the piece of ground in¬ 
tended to be given by Mr. Speckart.”* This 
does not, however, appear to have been done 
till 1639, from an entry which directs some 
paving to be done against the wall on the south 
side. 


* Mr. Speckart was allowed, iu return, a private entrance 
from his back premises that way to the church, which had 
been granted to Lady Dudley, and two other principal benefac¬ 
tors before. But to prevent the future claim as a l ight, an order 
was made in vestry 1637, that these four private doors should, 
on the death or removal of any of the parties, be stopped up. 
The Lady Dudley’s gate was kept in repair, at the parish 
expense, according to a subsequent payment. 



122 


Soon after the restoration, the further enlarge¬ 
ment of the churchyard became necessary, and 
after some difficulty, about a quarter of an acre 
more was added to it on the south side, pur* 
chased of Sir Richard Stiddolph, stated to be 
“ for the sole benefit of the poor” in the convey¬ 
ance, “and not anyways for the advantage, or 
benefit of the parson, or his successors.” Query . 
Has this been observed ? 

The ground here conveyed, forms that part of 
the churchyard which is bounded by Compton 
Street in part, and Phoenix Street, which had 
formerly been part of the precinct, or enclosure 
for St. Giles’s Hospital. The garden plot from 
which it was divided, was let afterwards to a 
gardener of the name of Brown, and was, from 
him, called Brown’s Gardens. 

The sexton having petitioned, in 1670, to be , 
allowed to continue the lights he had made into 
the church-yard, from his additional building to 
his dwelling-house, it was agreed to, during plea¬ 
sure, on condition that he gave,, as an acknow¬ 
ledgment to the Rector and Churchwardens 
yearly, on the Tuesday se’nnight after Easter, 
two fat capons , ready dressed. 

In consequence of a resolution of vestry, in 
1686, for forming a substantial gate to the church, 
the Resurrection Gate, as it is called, was erected 
the following year and completed. Over this 
is the well-known curious piece of sculpture of 


123 


the Resurrection, an ornament much admired 
and celebrated. The whole cost altogether 
£185 : 14s : 6d.* 

In 1805, a new burial ground having been 
obtained and consecrated, situate at St. Pan- 
eras, except in particular cases, the burial of the 
poor and other inhabitants was discontinued 
here.f 


* The “ New View of London” (1708) says, “ The church¬ 
yard is fenced with a good brick wall, and under a large com¬ 
pass pediment over the gate near the west, end is a prodigious 
number of carved figures, being an emblem of the Resurrection, 
done in relievo very curiously, and erected in the year 1687.” 
The composition is, with various alterations, taken from Michael 
Angelo's Last Judgment. The original gate stood eastward 
of its present site. 

f Pennant, in his Account of London, page 157, observes 
as follows. “ I have, in the church-yard of St. Giles, seen with 
horror, a great square pit with many rows of coffins piled one 
upon the other, all exposed to sight and smell; some of the 
piles were incomplete, expecting the mortality of the night. 
I turned away disgusted at the view, and scandalized at the 
want of police which so little regards the health of the living, 
as to permit so many putrid corpses, tacked between some 
slight boards, dispersing their dangerous effluvia over the 
capital. Notwithstanding a compliment paid to me in one of 
the public papers, of my having occasioned the abolition of the 
horrible practice, it still remains uncorrected in this great 
parish. The reform ought to have begun in the place just 
stigmatized.” 

Strype enumerates many of the Monuments in St. Giles's 
church and yard : we shall notice here only two remarkable 
ones. The oldest monument remaining in the church-yard in 
1708, was dated anno 1611, and is thus described in the New 
View of London. " In the cemetery or church-yard, close to 
the wall on the south-side, and near the west-end, this inscrip¬ 
tion is on a tombstone :— 

* Johannes Thornton, &c. In memory of his deare wife.’ 



124 


A building, situate on the site where Dudley 
Court now stands, was, with a garden attached, 
purchased by Duchess Dudley in 1G46, and 
was given for a perpetual mansion for the in¬ 
cumbent after three lives, whereof two were 
expired. Some time previous to 1722, it was 
probably taken down, Dudley Court having 
been then erected on the ground it had before 
occupied, and a committee of vestry was ap¬ 
pointed to treat with the Rector, Dr. Baker,, 
for purchasing the whole, to build a workhouse 
thereon. It was, there is little doubt, as well 
as Dudley House, which adjoined it, once part 
of the ancient hospital. The Rector of St. 
Giles, for the time being, is still entitled to re¬ 
ceive the rents, &c. of Dudley Court, where 
this residence stood. 


This lady is described in the English lines which follow, as 
having died in child-birth. The husband was the builder of, 
and gave the name to Thornton's Alley , which was probably 
his estate. The family was originally from Yorkshire, and 
from the following lines ‘ round the margent of the stone', had 
been parishioners as early as the hospital times:— 
f Full south this stone four-foot doth lie, 

Ilis father, John, and grand-sire, Henry; 

Thornton of Thornton, in Yorkshire bred. 

Where lives the fame of Thornton's being dead.' 

A stone in the church-yard against the eashend of the north 
aisle of the church has this inscription:— 

‘ Neare this place lyes the body of Eleanor Stewart, who 
dyed the first day of May, 1725, aged 123 years and above 
5 months. She lived in this parish near 60 years, and received 
,£150 by a pension of 4s. a week, in the last 15 years of 
her life.' ” 



125 


The Pound and Cage originally adjoined 
each other, and stood in the middle of High 
Street, from whence Parton informs us it was 
removed in 1656, to make way for the alms¬ 
houses which were afterwards built there. 
“ The Pound,” he adds, “ probably existed 
from a very early period, as a necessary ap¬ 
pendage to the parish while a village, and 
abounding in pasture lands, though it is un¬ 
noticed in the books of the parish, till Lord 
Southampton’s grant of the ground on which 
it stood for the almshouses, where it is de¬ 
scribed as occupying a space of 30-feet, 
which was to be the dimensions of the new 
Pound, therein directed to be removed to the 
end of Tottenham Court Road. The exact 
site of the Pound was the broad space where 
St. Giles High Street, Tottenham Court Road, 
and Oxford street meet, where it stood till 
within memory. Noticed for the profligacy of 
its inhabitants, the vicinity of this spot became 
proverbial: witness a couplet of an old song, 

“ At Newgate steps Jack Chance was found. 

And bred up near St. Giles’s Pound.” 

It was finally removed about the the year 
1765, since which the neighbourhood has ex¬ 
perienced many improvements, particularly by 
the erection of the great Brewery of Messrs. 
Meux and Co. 


126 


The Cage appears to have been used as a 
prison, not merely of a temporary kind, but 
judging from the parish records* with little 
lenity.* 

The Plague . St. Giles’s parish has the me¬ 
lancholy celebrity of originating the plague of 
1665, the most severe visitation of that malady 
that ever occurred in this country. It is on 
record that this dreadful scourge has extended 
its ravages to this country at five different pe¬ 
riods within eighty years, namely, in 1592, 
when it destroyed 11,503 persons; in 1603, 
when it destroyed 36,269; in 1625, when 
35,500 fell; and in 1636, 13,480 in London only ; 
but the severity of the disease in 1665, was 
far more extensive, when no less than 97,306 
of the inhabitants of London and its suburbs 
died of it, according to De Foe, in ten months. 

In 1592 and 1625, this parish is named in 
the bills of mortality. In the former instance, 


* The following entries are copied in proof of this :~ 

s. d. 


1641. “ Paid to a poor woman that was brought to bed 

in the cage .*. 2 O 

For a shroud for a poor woman that died in the cage..* 2 6 

1648. (July 9th.) To Ann Wyatt, in the cage, to re¬ 
lieve her and buy ^er a truss of straw. 2 6 

(July 12th.) Paid for a shroud for Ann Wyatt . 2 6 


The death of this latter unfortunate, three days after the 
relief is stated to have been afforded her, leaves too much 
reason to fear she died of want. The cause of the former’s 
death, is, to say the least of it, doubtful. 






127 


there died of the plague 596, and the total 
numberof burials was stated at 894. In 1625, the 
number stated which died of the plague was 
947, and total of burials 1,333. No doubt can 
be entertained of nearly all these dying, in 
fact, of the plague.* 


* A pest house, which had been fitted-up (1625) in Blooms¬ 
bury “ for the nine out parishes adjoining London,” among 
which was St. Giles in the Fields, was afterwards engaged by 
the parish on its own account, and there are entries in the 
minutes of relief sent there to the poor at various periods. 
This direful malady progressed more or less till 1648, during 
which time 13,581 persons in all died of it. The vestry ap 
pointed agreeably to the act two examiners to inspect the 
visited houses, as on former occasions. No assessment on its 
early appearance was made, the wealthy inhabitants having 
fled into the country to avoid the disease. 

There was afterwards an order made to pay Mr. Pratt the 
churchwarden, monies advanced during the calamity in the 
following words:—“Whereas in the year 1640, it pleased 
Almighty God to visit divers of the poore people of this 
parish, with the infection of the plague; and because divers 
of the gentry and p’sons of estate were then out of towne, 
there could not be an assessment made, and money collected 
amongst the p’shioners for the p'sent reliefe of the said infected, 
whereof Mr. William Pratt, &c. borrowed of Theodore Colley, 
Esq. o£50; which sum appearing to have been faithfully dis¬ 
bursed to the said visited poor, it is ordered that the same be 
repaid.” 

1642. The entries indicate an increase in the virulence of 
the disease, as the dormant practice of shutting up the infected 
house, was then first resorted to, and the bodies were collected 
in carts, and unceremoniously thrown into pits or graves of large 
dimensions by torch light. The following entry had for its 
object the fastening in the infected, and to prevent access to, 
or coming from thereto, under severe penalties, excepting the 




128 


The plague of 1665 is well described by De 
Foe, mixed unfortunately, however, with ro¬ 
mance. It is pretty well authenticated that it 
began its melancholy progress in St. Giles’s 
parish, near the upper end of Drury Lane, 
where two men, said to be Frenchmen, died of 
it. He tells us, its havoc in this parish alone 
was truly frightful, amounting to 3,216 in one 
year, 1665. He concludes his book thus:— 

“ A dreadful plague in London was. 

In the year sixty-five, 

Which swept an hundred thousand souls 
Away; yet I alive.” 

The following are parish entries in 1643, 
which are curious records of the time:— 

s. d. 

et To the bearers for carrying out of Crown-yard 

a woman that dyed of the plague . 1 6 


medical or other attendants, by permission of the watchman, 
who kept the key. There are other entries added :— 

<£. s. d. 


“ 1042. Paid for the two padlocks and hasps for 

visited houses . 0 2 6 

Paid Mr. Hyde for candles for the bearers 0 10 O 
To the same for the night cart and cover 

the summe of. 7 9 0 

To Mr. Mann for links and candles for 

the night bearers.0 10 0” 


The candles were to search such infected houses as did not 
return an answer to the cry of ‘ bring out your dead/ and it 
was not unusual to find the whole household had perished; 
the bodies were, in such cases or otherwise, collected in co^. 
vered carts and fatten to church-yards, fields, ike. and thrown 
into pits dug for the purpose at midnight, the persons doing 
this duty carrying links to light them, and generally smoking 
to prevent infection. 







129 


e. <]. 


Sent to a poor man shut up in Crown-yard of the 

plague . 1 6 

Paid for a booke, and two orders concerning the 

visited houses .*. 1 6 

Paid Mr. Hyde for padlocks and staples for a house 1 2 

Paid the sexton for making ten graves and for links, 

as per bill. 5 6 


Paid and given Mr. Lyn the bedle, for a piece of 
good service for the pisshe, in conveying away of 


a visited household out of the pisshe to Lond’ 

Pest House, forth of Mr. Higgons’s house at 

Bloomsbury .... 1 6 

Received of Mr. Hearle, Dr. Temple’s gift, to be 
given to Mrs. Hockey, a minister’s widow, shut 
up in the crache-yard of the plague . 10 0” 


Dr. Mead and others have ascribed the 
origin of the plague of 1665 to the importation 
of some cotton from Turkey, which was satu¬ 
rated with the infection. Maitland, speaking 
of it at its height, says, “ all the houses were 
shut-up, the streets deserted, and scarcely any 
thing to be seen thereon but grass growing, 
innumerable fires for purifying the infected air, 
coffins, pest carts, red crosses upon doors, witli 
dismal aspect and woeful lamentations carry¬ 
ing their infants to the grave, and scarcely 
any other sounds to be heard than those oc¬ 
casionally emitted from the windows of ‘ Pray 
for us/ and the direful call of ‘ Bring out your 
dead,’ with the piteous groans of departing 
souls, and melancholy knells for bodies ready 
for the grave.” 


K 







130 


“ This plague,” says Dr. Sydenham, “ dis¬ 
covered its first malignity among the poorer 
sort of people in St. Giles in the Fields, to¬ 
wards the latter end of the year 1664.” (See 
Practical Method for the Cure of the Plague , 
1665 .) Dr. Hodges and Sir Richard Man- 
ningham corroborated this idea in their works 
on the plague. 

The following are a few of the entries of that 
period 

“ 1665. (August) Ordered, that an additional rate be levied 
for the use of the visited poor, to the amount of £600 ; and 
that the inhabitants of the parish be valued accordingly.” 

Independent of this contribution by assessment, 
various sums were subscribed :— 

£. s. d. 

“ Received of Mr. Williams, from the Earl of Clare, 

(gift money) . 10 0 0 

Received of Mr. J ustice Godfrey, (Sir Edmondbury) 

from the Lord Treasurer .50 0 0 

Received of Earle Craven and the rest of the jus¬ 
tices, towards the visited poore (at various times) 449 16 10 

Earle Craven, towards the visited poore .. 40 3 0 

The appointment of searchers, shutting-up 
of infected houses, &c. are thus noticed :— 

£. s. d. 

“ L665. (August.) Paid the searchers for viewing 
the corpse of good-wife Phillips, who dyed of 

the plague . 0 0 6 

Laid out for good-man Phillips, and his children 
being shut-up and visited .. 0 5 0 







131 


Laid out for Lylla Lewis in 3, Crane Court, being 
shut-u'pp of the plague, and laid out for her, and 
for the nurse and burial..... 0 18 0 

1666. (July.) Ordered, that the constables, &c, do take an 
especiall account of all inmates coming from other parishes, 
and to take security that they be not burdensome. And 
also to take care to prevent the spreading of the infection 
for the future, by a timely provision for them that are, or 
hereafter may happen to be visited.” 

I will conclude the subject by quoting two 
eminent writers on the plague at this period. 
“ London might well be said to be all in tears, 
the mourners did not go about the streets in¬ 
deed, for nobody put on black, or made a 
formal dress of mourning; it was, however, 
truly heard in the streets. The shrieks of wo¬ 
men and children at the doors and windows of 
their houses, where their dearest relations were 
dying, or perhaps dead, were enough to pierce 
the stoutest hearts. At the west-end of the 
town, it was a surprising thing to see those 
streets which were usually thronged, now 
grown desolate, so that I have sometimes gone 
the length of a whole street, (I mean bye 
streets) and have seen nobody to direct me 
but watchmen , set at the doors of such houses 
as were shut-up: and one day, I particularly 
observed, that even in Holborn the people 
walked in the middle of the street, and not at 
the sides, not to mingle, as I supposed, with 
k 2 



132 


anybody that came out of infected bouses, or 
meet with smells and scents from them.” 

“ In the streets might be seen persons seized 
with the sickness, staggering like drunken 
men: here lay some dozing, and almost dead; 
there, others were met fatigued with excessive 
vomiting, as if they had drank poison: in the 
midst of the market, persons in full health fell 
suddenly down as if the contagion was there 
exposed to sale. It was not uncommon to see 
an inheritance pass to three heirs within the 
space of four days. The bearers were not 
sufficient to inter the dead,” &c. (See D?\ 

Hodgson's Journal of the Plague, and Dr. 
Hodges on the Plague.) 


133 


Chapter IV. 

Bloomsbury—Its Manor and Derivation — Pro¬ 
gressive Extension—Abstract Statement of 
Buildings — Mr. Burtons vast Enterprise — 
Bedford and Foundling Estates noticed , 8$c. 


The new and opulent parish of St. George, 
Bloomsbury, which now claims our attention, 
is well-known to have been abstracted from 
that of St. Giles in the Fields, and it still 
remains connected with it, being only distinct 
in respect to its ecclesiastical government, 
which we shall have occasion to notice as we 
proceed. 

Maitland and others describe the district of 
this parish as anciently bearing the name of 
Lomesbury, and he speaks of the King s Mews 
being destroyed by fire in the reign of Henry 
VIII. But the more probable derivation of 
its name was from a lord of this manor in the 
reign of Henry III. William de Blemund, or 
Blemot. In 1216 and subsequently, he wit¬ 
nessed several hospital deeds, now extant, at 
which time it was called “ Blemund’s Land/' 


134 


and “ Blemund’s Fee;” since then, by an easy 
transition, it has acquired the modern names of 
Blemundsbury or Bloomsbury. This is some¬ 
what confirmed by the circumstance of the 
Manors of St. Giles and Bloomsbury being 
originally divided by a great fosse or ditch, (as 
before mentioned), called Blemund’s Ditch, 
which ran east and west at the back of the 
north side of Holborn. This William de Ble- 
mund had a yearly obit or anniversary service 
for his soul performed at the hospital of St. 
Giles, in consequence of a grant made for that 
purpose. 

The Manor of Bloomsbury is bounded on 
the south, by the Manor of St. Giles; on the 
north, by the Prebend of Tottenhall; on the 
east by the Manor of Portpool, or Gray’s Inn ; 
and on the west by that of Mary-la-bonne.* 


* The ancient natural division of the two, north and south, 
districts, which now form the joint parishes, was a road or 
highway running east and west on the site of Holborn and 
Broad Street, St. Giles, which was a great and principal 
thoroughfare. 

This was built on and chiefly inhabited first on the north 
side, along which gradually arose a few scattered dwellings 
from its eastern extremity to the Pittaunce Croft , which was 
opposite tiie Hospital. These had gardens behind them 
reaching to the ditch which bounded the south side of Ble- 
mundsbury or Bloomsbury. In the midst of this principal 
street or highway was the common spring or conduit, which 
supplied the inhabitants with water; and near it, and exactly 
facing the north end of Aldewych , was a stone cross called 
Aldewych Cross , with a cottage and gardens adjoining. Ex- 




135 


The successor of the Blemund family was 
Sir William Belet, Knight, of Chigwell, who 
in the hospital deeds is said to be then (19th of 
Edward I. 129J) lord of the fee; but the in¬ 
termediate owners from this period to its coming 
into the possession of the Southampton family 
are not known, nor does it appear material here 
to notice the lords of the manors of St. Giles. j' 

actly in a line easterly with the present street, Holborn, the 
road ran to the termination of the parish near Chancery Lane, 
near the “ Barram vetori Templi” which gave it the designa¬ 
tion of “ St. Giles without the bars of the old Temple,” and 
before the building of the Temple, “ St. Giles without the bars 
of London.” There were besides this three other principal 
roads or thoroughfares, viz. Eldestrade, or Old Street, (now 
Crown Street), leading from the north to Westminster; ano¬ 
ther lesser one, called Le Lane (now Monmouth Street) ; and 
a chief highway, the Via De Aldewych (Drury Lane), which, 
as has been shown, gave name to land on each side, and was 
of great antiquity. There were also other minor intersecting 
paths or ways, which had no distinguishing denomination in 
the old grants. 

f By Indenture, dated 14th of James I. 1617, between 
Sir Henry Riche, Dame Isabella Riche, and Dame Dorothy 
Cope, sold to Phillip Gifford and Thomas Risley, Esqs. trus¬ 
tees for Henry Earl of Southampton, in consideration of the 
sum of <£600 paid by the said most noble Henry Earl of 
Southampton, &c. by the description of, “ all that the manor 
and dissolved hospital, commonly called the manor or dissolved 
hospital of St. Giles-in-the-Fields without the bars of London, 
in the county of Middlesex, with all their rights, members, 
aud appurtenances; and all and singular messuages, mills, 
houses, edifices, structures, gardens, orchards, &c. situate in 
the villages, hamlets, parishes, and fields of St. Giles-in-the 
Fields, St. Pancras, Kentish Town, Maribone, St. Martin’s 
in-the-Fields, Hoi borne, and Paddington, in the county of 
Middlesex, or elsewhere in the same county; except the 




136 


The ancient plan before referred to, (anno 1570) 
exhibits almost a complete void in reference to 
houses in this now parish, all the space which 
is now Red Lion Street to a point where Dyot 
Street commenced is entirely vacant, and there 
only appears a cluster of about ten houses. In 
the distance, Southampton House is delineated, 
surrounded by extensive fields and enclosures, 
but no other vestige of a building till the eye 
is carried to the neighbourhood of the dissolved 
hospital. In this unbuilt state, Bloomsbury* 
is supposed to have continued till about 1623, 
when a neighbourhood began to form, as ap¬ 
pears by the assessment for the new church, 
viz. street side of Bloomsbury, 19 houses ; 
north side, 11 ; west side, 37 ; east side, 45 ; 

lythes of a certain parcel of land called Bloomsbury, sold to 
one Samuel Knowles.” 

From Henry Earl of Southampton, the Manor of St. Giles* 
(together with that of Bloomsbury, which was before in the 
same family) descended to his son and heir, Thomas Wrio- 
thesly, fourth Earl of Southampton, and Lord Treasurer to 
Charles II. who held it till his death, 1668, when it became 
the property of his daughter and co-heiress. Lady Rachel 
Russell, the wife of the celebrated William Lord Russell, 
who by her marriage brought it into the Bedford family, the 
present holders of the Manor of St. Giles with Bloomsbury. 

It may here be noticed, that the whole of its southern side, 
or half, is in the Manor of St. James, viz. from Crown Street 
west to Lincoln’s-Inn Fields east; and in breadth, from the 
hospital walls and the line formed by St. Giles’s Street and 
Hoi born to Long Acre in part, and St. Clement’s parish in 
the other part. 

* It is called a certain parcel of land so late as 1617. 



137 


and Little Alley in Bloomsbury, 24 houses— 
total 136. Thus it stood, with little variation, 
till the end of Charles I.’s reign, being an ad¬ 
vance of 26 years (1649), as may be seen in 
the parliamentary plan of that period, wherein 
little else but fields is shown, except the build¬ 
ings enumerated, and two batteries for defence 
on the north side of Southampton House. 

Great Russell Street was described in 1708, 
as “a very spacious and handsome street, 
between King Street, Bloomsbury, north east, 
and Tottenham Court Road west, extending in 
length 725 yards; and from Charing Cross north, 
it is 1,170 yards.” Strype, in 1720, calls it “a 
very handsome, large, and well built street, and 
the best inhabited by the nobility and gentry, 
(especially on the north side, as having gar¬ 
dens behind the houses, and the prospect of 
pleasant fields up to Hampstead and Highgate) 
insomuch as this place is esteemed the most 
healthful in London.—In its passage it saluteth 
Southampton House, Montague House, and 
Thanet House ;* all these seats of noblemen. 
But for stateliness of building and curious gar¬ 
dens, Montague House hath the pre-eminence, 
as indeed of all the houses within the cities of 

* Thanet House, the residence of the Earls of that name, 
was situate opposite Dyot Street, and was subsequently divided 
into two spacious houses, one of which, during many years, 
was occupied by the late x Hderman Coombe. 



138 


London and Westminster, and the adjacent 
parishes.” Russell Street took its name from 
the ducal family of Russell, whose residence 
was near it; but Parton mentions, as a singular 
coincidence, a respectable family of that name 
who resided on this spot, and had several 
estates here, as far back as the reign of Henry III. 

Bloomsbury Square. This spacious square 
was first called Southampton Square, and the 
noble mansion which formed the north side, 
was also called Southampton House. The 
names of the rows forming the east, west, and 
south sides of the square, were called in 1720, 
Seymour Row, Allington Row, and Vernon Row. 
These three sides were erected in the character 
the square now exhibits, about the same time 
as Russell Street was built. The north side 
consists of ten modern houses, erected since 
1800, with an opening into Bedford Place, all 
on the site of the former Southampton, (since, 
Bedford) House. The Earls of Chesterfield 
had a mansion here during many years ; and 
other, of the higher classes, had residences in 
this square.* Its area contains about three 
acres and a half. 


* We will here subjoin the critical notice given of this 
square, by an architect of great acknowledged taste and 
judgment. u Bloomsbury Square,’’ he says, “ is, at present, 
remarkable for nothing but its being a place capable of great 
improvements; there is.not one tolerable bouse in it; and the 
area in the middle is almost as much neglected as the build- 
ings. The ground on which the Duke of Bedford's house 



139 


Bloomsbury Market. This is said to be 
among* the earliest erections on this part of the 
parish. Strype describes it as “a long place 
with two market-houses, the one for flesh and 
the other for fish, but of small account, by rea¬ 
son the market is of so little use and so ill 
served with provisions, insomuch that the in¬ 
habitants deal elsewhere. ,, It still retains that 
character. 

Maitland, in summing up what he calls the 
remarkables of Bloomsbury, says “ that it 
contains a stately parish church, with the sta¬ 
tue of George I. ridiculously placed on the top 
of its steeple; a magnificent square; a spacious 
market; and one of the parliament forts.” 
Kingsgate Street bounds the parish, and stands 
to the east of Bloomsbury Square. 

This street is only remarkable for the circum¬ 
stance from which it derives its name. In the reign 

stands, is, beyond dispute, one of the finest situations in 
Europe for a palace, and I am not a little grieved to see it so 
■wretchedly mis-employed.—In the first place, it has the whole 
side of a square for a front, and the square itself would serve 
as a magnificent area before it. Then there is a grand street 
just opposite to it, which throws the prospect of it open to 
Holborn, and must excite the curiosity of every passenger to 
regard and admire it. Then behind, it has the advantage of 
most agreeable gardens, and a view of the country, which 
would make a retreat from town almost unnecessary; besides 
the opportunity of exhibiting another prospect of the building, 
which would enrich the landscape, and challenge new approba¬ 
tion.” 



140 


of James I. it was a mere country lane, with a 
barred gate at its entrance (as may be seen in 
various old plans of London); which gate, from 
the king usually passing that way in his journey 
to Theobalds, received the denomination of 
“ Kingsgate,” and thence the street subse¬ 
quently built on its site, was called at first 
“ Kingsgate Road/’ and afterwards “ Kings¬ 
gate Street;” and Theobald’s Road, to which it 
leads, acquired its name from the same cause.* 

Strype describes the other streets on this 
division of the parish briefly, as follows. King 
Street runs in a parallel direction with Kings¬ 
gate Street, but more to the west, and took its 
name from the King passing through it, or near 
it, to Theobald’s; he tells us, that in his time it 
was “ very long, running northward to the fields, 
and the side to the east best inhabited, having 
gardens at the back sides.” It has been rebuilt 
since his time. 

“ Southampton Street: —very spacious, 
with good houses, well inhabited and resorted 
unto by gentry for lodgings ; which said street 
cometh out of Holborn, and fronts the square 
called Southampton Square.” 

* Pepys, in his Diary under the date of March 3, 1668—9, 
says ‘‘that the King and the Duke of York, when going to 
some foot and horse races at New-Market, left Whitehall at 
three in the morning, and had the misfortune to be overset, 
with the Duke of Monmouth, and the Prince (Rupert) at the 
King’s-gate, in Holborne; and the King all dirty, but no 
hurt.—It was dark, and the torches did not, they say, light 
the coach as they ought to do.” 



141 


" Duke Street cometh out of Great Russell 
Street, and passing by Little Russell Street and 
Castle Street, falls into St. Giles’s through a 
narrow passage of a brewhouse.” The vicinity 
of Duke Street, to the Ducal residences of 
Montague and Bedford Houses, very well ac¬ 
counts for its name; and Little, (like Great) 
Russell Street, was, no doubt, so called in 
compliment to the Russell family.” “ Silver 
Street, running from Southampton Street to 
the market place, is indifferent well built and 
inhabited. Then on the south of the market 
is Lion Street, but short, and gives an entrance 
into Holborn. Gilbert Street, which, with 
Little Russell Street, falls on the backside of 
Arlington Row, used for coach-houses and sta¬ 
bles; these streets are but very ordinary. Cas¬ 
tle Street hath on the east side Hart Street, a 
good broad Street, and on the west side Phoe¬ 
nix Street; both of which are but ordinary. 
Castle Yard is a small place near here, and 
also Brewer Street, both of little account; as 
is also Peter Street, a short avenue. Queen 
Street, now Museum Street, opposite to Mon¬ 
tague House, is a good broad street, indif¬ 
ferently well built and inhabited. Bow Street, 
now Museum Street, comes out of Holborn and 
falls into Peter Street (also now Museum 
Street,) dividing Hart Street from Brewer Street 
(now Thorney Street,) both narrow and not 


142 


over well inhabited Hyde Street is a tolerable 
good street, and is situated between Blooms¬ 
bury Market east and the meeting of Peter 
Street, Bow Street, and Brewer Street west.” 
The above particulars, with what has been 
said before in treating on the division of this 
district, will be found a tolerable correct view 
of the buildings erected up to the period of 
1720; when Strype published his survey of 
the cities of London and Westminster. The 
boundaries at that date comprised nearly all 
the old portion of the parish, extending to 
the north in a line with Great Russell Street, 
taking an easterly direction from opposite 
Dyot Street, (now George Street) to King 
Street; thence a southerly direction, including 
Kingsgate Street and part of Eagle Street, to 
the north side of Holborn; from thence in a 
direct line to Dyot Street westerly, and ending 
with its termination on the east side, to the 
north side of Great Russell Street again. 

Maitland, whose “ History of London” was 
published in 1739, states the number of houses 
in Bloomsbury at 954, when the parish re¬ 
mained nearly stationary during the preceding 
twenty years, being an increase of 818 since 
1623,—116 years. But a new and astonishing- 
era commenced here in 1792, when an inge¬ 
nious and enterprising architect, James Burton , 


143 


esquire , began to erect a number of houses on 
the Foundling Hospital estate, partly in this 
parish, and partly in that of St. Pancras; and 
subsequently since from 1792, on the Duke of 
Bedford’s estate, within the same parishes. 
Baltimore House , built towards the north-east of 
Bedford House , by Lord Baltimore in 1763, 
appears to have been the only erection since 
Strype’s Survey, to these periods, with the 
exception of a chimney-sweepers cottage still 
further north, and part of which is still to be 
seen in Rhodes's Mews , Little Guilford Street . 
In anno 1800 Bedford House was demolished 
entirely, which, with its offices and gardens, 
had been the site where the noble family of the 
Southampton, and the illustrious Russells, had 
resided during more than 200 years, almost 
isolated. Hence commenced the formation of 
a fine uniform street, Bedford Place, consisting 
of forty houses, on the spot; also, the north side 
of Bloomsbury Square, Montague Street to the 
west, and one side of Southampton Row to the 
east. 

Towards the north, an extensive piece of waste 
ground, denominated the Long Fields, was trans¬ 
formed into a magnificent square, with streets 
diverging therefrom in various directions; since 
which various squares have arisen on the Found¬ 
ling, as also on the Bedford estate, some of which 


144 


are in Bloomsbury parish, and shall be here¬ 
after enumerated and noticed more particularly. 

In the year 1739, (December) the governors 
of that charitable institution, the Foundling 
Hospital, purchased the estate adverted to of 
the Earl of Salisbury: it comprised fifty-six 
acres, for which they gave £7,000, the whole of 
which is now covered with streets and build¬ 
ings of other descriptions. The annual produce 
of the ground-rents cannot but prove very consi¬ 
derable now; and in process of time, as the 
leases fall in, the income will be immense. 
The number of houses so built since 1792 to 
1829, on this fifty-six acres, is 1082 ; of which 
number, 525 belong to St. George Blooms¬ 
bury. 

To those who have lived to witness what has 
been effected in this enterprise of building, 
astonishment must take place of every other 
feeling, on viewing the prodigious efforts made 
chiefly by and through the influence and exam¬ 
ple of one individual, who cannot be named 
but with respect. Let it be remembered that 
this vast speculation of Mr. Burton’s was 
begun and finished during a long disastrous 
war, most unfavourable to such an undertaking, 
yet he sternly persevered, and in spite of 
predictions to the contrary, succeeded and 
prospered to an extent far beyond his expec¬ 
tation. 


145 


The fieltfs* where robberies and murders had 
been committed, the scene of depravity and 
wickedness the most hideous for centuries, be¬ 
came, chiefly under his auspices, rapidly me¬ 
tamorphosed into splendid squares and spacious 
streets; receptacles of civil life and polished 
society. This pleasing transition, however, 
required firmness of nerve and energy of no 
common description, and these Mr. Burton 
eminently possessed. If he accumulated a 
fortune by the vast improvements of these es¬ 
tates, he well deserved it; and knowing, as I do, 
the probity of his conduct and character, I hope 
he will enjoy it in happiness during his future 
days. 

Having lived in Bloomsbury during the long- 
period of nearly thirty years, and being much 
connected with the buildings here for a con¬ 
siderable portion of that time, I may be con¬ 
sidered competent to give a tolerable accurate 
statement of their progress; I have therefore 
taken some pains to collect such particulars of 
them which come within my own knowledge, 
which I here present to my readers ; presuming 
that very few, if any instances, can be adduced 
of a similar extension within the same period, 
and by private individuals. 


* Called Long Fields, and by Strype, 17‘>0, the Southamp¬ 
ton Helds ; no doubt they were then so named. 

L 



146 


A complete List of Houses and Tenements built on the 
Foundling Hospital Estate since 1792, and on that of his 
Grace the Duke of Bedford since 1798, within the parish 
of St. George , Bloomsbury. 


Abbey Place . 


Keppel Mews, South . 

.. 35 

Bloomsbury Square. 

. 10 

Keppel Mews, North . 

.. 42 

Brunswick Square ... 

. 12 

Moutague Place. 


Bedford Place. 


Montague Streets .... 

. 36 

Bedford Place, Upper. 

. 50 

Montague Mews. 


Bernard Street. 


Marchmont Street .... 

. 40 

Brunswick Mews .... 


Marchmont Place .... 


Coram Street, Great . 

. 59 

Rhodes Mews. 


Compton Street . 

. 9 

Torrington Square .... 

.. 70 

Coram Street, Little . 

. 33 

Torrington Street .... 

.. 5 

Coram Place . . 

. 16 

Torrington Street, Little 6 

Chapel Place . 


Tavistock Mews. 


Colonnade . 

. 26 

Russell Square . 

. 65 

Everett Street. 

. 29 

Russell Place .. 


Guilford Street .. 


Wilmot Street. 


Guilford Street, Little., 

.. 33 

Russell Mews.. 


Hunter Street.. 


Woburn Place. 


Hunter Mews. 


Woburn Mews. 


Henrietta Street. 

. 29 

Woburn Mews, West. 

.. 13 

Henrietta Mews.. 


Southampton Row, West 20 

Kenton Street. 

. 41 

Southampton Mews, Do. 39 

Keppel Street.. 

.. 40 




Total 1198.* 


* In James I.’s reign, 1623, Parton informs us, from the 


ParishMinutes, there were houses assessed in Blooms- 


bury . 



136 

In George II/s reign, 

1732, 

Malcolm says, they had 


increased (in 113 years ) to 


900 

In 1739 (same reign), 

Maitland makes them. 

954 

In 1799, Malcolm (60 years afterwards) reduces them to 

916 

Iu 1829, It now contains, Michaelmas, 1829 ... 

1976 








































147 


It will be seen here that the total increase 
from 1792 is 1198, of which extraordinary ac¬ 
cumulation I have ascertained that no less than 
663 of these were built by or for Mr. James 
Burton, within a period of eleven years only, 
namely, from 1792 to 18031 

But these form only a portion of what he 
performed, including St. Pancras parish: the 
whole number, if these are added, is 922, being 
an addition of 259 more. 

Whilst on this subject, it may not prove un¬ 
interesting to insert here an Abstract taken 
from a printed paper, which in July, 1823, was 
handed to a company of builders, friends of 
Mr. Burton, assembled at a public dinner at 
the Freemasons’ Tavern, when a piece of plate 
was given him as a testimonial of their affection 
and esteem. 

The statement here annexed has been taken so accurately, 
that I can vouch for its correctness, which made me conclude 
that Malcolm is wrong in his calculation, especially as there 
does not appear to have been any houses pulled down, except 
a few in Dyot Street, a few years since, which would not 
suffice to make the apparent difference. 

Unless the addition of stable tenements assessed with the 
houses attached to them, makes the statements correct, there 
would require 138 more houses to make the accounts agree. 
The number of houses, about 20 of which have not been 


assessed, Michaelmas, 1829 . 1976 

Being an increase since 1792.. 1198 

Leaving the number at that period only ... 778 

Difference as above mentioned .. 138 

Being Malcolm’s calculation, 1799 ... 916 

L 2 








148 


© S3*" S3 - m A A r#N ^ 

?roq (R S (^ O (D OsOM> 
-3 £D fD l _4 Tf\ i_i ■—i IT" m ^ ST r 

2 b b* rgs 

”L C 7T 


£ 


w 50 2? 

1 P (D 

n -> o 
cc* ^ -T* 

£> 
o o 
p B ' 

S’ >- 3 

* a = 
:*>>-» = 
O OiM 

g ^ oo 

hOO? 
00 JO 3 

S’: £ 

l_> : *® 

Mr to 

oo: w 
to ; : 

co: : 


» = 
05 C 


W^Lg’ 
05 o ^3 

CL. C =" 


P 




$ S:3. 
“S'O 

tijjq C 

£ 2 . 3 

ST “ 3 
| S. o 

r> aT ^ 


253 - 


CD M 
- CO 

o c 

22 © 
^ M 

00 

: >- i 
: a 


CO m ao 
oo <i o» 
— co — 

o (09 

i - p h 

00 © M 

o — cc 

W 00 to 
: §: 


CD O c^ o 

"If 3 

r S- CO 
§ T3WS 

i'fsa 

— * 

f 

SP * “§ 

1*3* 

*11 = 
— crq 2- a- 

3 * n 

fD __ Cp 

"^25: 

I 8 n't 

£ r-r © £ 
P>M W "f 


M <» CO 
O 05 CO 


to O 
CO — if*. 


CO tO'M 

CO Mjfcto cc M 


I I 


rfa. ^ (0» lO 
05 CO CO 


M H W 

05 ^ 00 


O H* 

tf>> oo o 


t— to t-» 

^00 <1 M 

CO 00 to Ox 

H H tO 

to 05 OD Crt to H 

O o CO CO 05 


CO CO co 
CO CO — 


to 05 CO c* 
to *-* to CO CO <1 
M - W C5 05 O 


to to — to CO CO n 
COO» CC M © — to pi <t c+5 
o o h b m h to o< V * 

05 05 <IOtOCOi^^tO 

ooooocooo 


2 


CO CO co to to 

CO — COtO<JOCOCOCO Q 
W M QDO» 00 p P 05 P cb 
05 M V 'o 00 05 V <J CO * 

§ 00000000 
OOP O O OOP 


1st Rate. 


2nd Rate. 


3rd Rate. 


4th Rate. 


Total. 


Estimated 

Rental 

including 

Ground 

Rents. 


Estimated 

Gross 

Value. 


00 

v* Co 

5*. S' 

H- $ 

00 S 


P IV 

w 

-i 


b3 

§ g 

S* S’ 

S2.QTO, 

<S 

rs « 


s- w - 5 

«-q § 

Col. & 

J5 &■ £ 

g 

3S p^» _ 
"S 


a i 
1% 

I s 

* 8 - 

P S 

3 

a | 




RECAPITULATION. 


The Number of Buildings so erected. 2,366 

Annual Rental estimated at .. *£172,300 

Estimated Value. *£1,848,900 

Annual House and Window Duty. .£45,120 

Duties on the Materials, upwards. *£150,000 


And Residences for about 13,000, at Five and a Half (being 
the allowed Average) to each Building. 

London, July , 1823. 

























149 


Since this period, 1823, Mr. Burton has 
built many additional houses of magnitude in 
the Regent’s Park, and, at an advanced stage 
of life, he is finally forming a new town near 
Hastings. 


Note continued from page 147. 

The discrepancy between the calculations of Maitland and 
Malcolm, 1739 and 1799, is very unaccountable, and shows 
how little the authority of writers, even of eminence, may be 
depended upon in many instances. 

It is remarkable, that when it was in contemplation to form 
the New' Road from the City to Paddington, anno 1755, the 
Duke of Bedford violently opposed it in parliament, on the 
ground of its being likely to deteriorate his property ! The 
measure, however, was effected, and experience has shown 
how contrary has been the result; the advantage to that noble 
family has been, and will be, prodigious. All the Duke’s estates in 
its neighbourhood have been since covered with houses, except 
a new square parrallel with Torrington Square, which is now 
in progress, intended to be named Rothsay Square. 



150 


Chapter V. 

Bloomsbury—Formation of its Parish—Church 
and Public Buildings—Criticisms of Ralph and 
Walpole—Squares and Institutions — Histori¬ 
cal notice of Resurrectionists—Places of Wor¬ 
ship—List of Rectors—Population of the joint 
Parishes, fyc. 

Reverting again to my more immediate sub¬ 
ject, Bloomsbury, I shall here notice the pub¬ 
lic edifices, squares, and streets, with whatever 
other objects are worthy of attention, begin¬ 
ning first with the Church, which constitutes it 
a parish. 

An official return was made to parliament in 
1710 (8th of Anne), which represented that 
the parish of St. Giles in the Fields contained 
5,800 families and 34,800 inhabitants, whose 
places of worship were one church, three cha¬ 
pels, and one Presbyterian meeting-house. This 
disproportion suggested the propriety of di¬ 
viding the district into two parishes, which 
was finally effected, January 8th, 1724, (10th 


151 


of George I.) when the deed for setting out the 
new parish of Bloomsbury was enrolled in 
Chancery. (For Acts relative to the Church , 
Minister , $c. see Appendix.) 

A piece of land was purchased of Lady 
Rachel Russell and the Duchess of Bedford, 
situate between Hart Street on the north 
side, and Little Russell Street on the south, 
comprising in the front and rear about 106^-feet 
by about 165-feet in depth. This had been 
called Plough Yard, and here the new Church 
was erected prior to anno 1724, and on the 8th 
of January in that year, five of the commis¬ 
sioners by deed poll under their hands and 
seals, did declare and appoint, that the said 
Church should from and for ever after the en¬ 
rollment of that deed, and the consecration of 
the said Churchy be made a parish Church. 
And in the same deed was described, a certain 
portion of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields 
as the limits of the new parish; but for some 
unknown cause, no provision was made for the 
Rector until the Act of the 3rd of George II. 
(See Appendix.) 

The Church is situate on the site described, 
and stands in the unusual position of north and 
and south. It was built under the direction of 
an architect of the name of Hawksmore, at the 
estimated expense of £9,790, which Malcolm 
affirms was exceeded by only three pounds! 


152 


When viewed from the south side of Hart 
Street it has an imposing appearance, having a 
massive portico with columns of the Corinthian 
order. As a whole, however, it has not been 
held in much repute, and Walpole calls it a 
mass of absurdity.* It is dedicated to St. 
George the Martyr, in honor of King George 
I., and the tower is surmounted with a statue 
of him supported by square pyramids. Lions 
and unicorns adorn the steeple, ornamented 
with festoons, which have excited ridicule 
from the animals being injudiciously large, and 

* “ Nicholas Hawksmore, scholar of Wren, was the architect 
of St. George Bloomsbury ; as also of St. Mary Wolnoth in 
London Street; Christ Church, Spitalfields; St. George, 
Middlesex ; and St. Anne*s, Limehouse. The statue of the 
king on Bloomsbury steeple is hugged by the royal supporters. 
A lion, a unicori\, and a king on such an eminence is very 
surprising ; 

The things we know are neither rich nor rare. 

But wonder how the devil they got there.”— Walpole. 

The author of “ a new Critical Review of the Public 
Buildings,” before quoted, speaks of this structure as follows: 
<( The new Church of St. George Bloomsbury, is built all of 
stone, is adorned with a pompous portico, can boast many 
other decorations, has been stinted in no expense; and yet 
upon the whole, is ridiculous and absurd even to a proverb. 
The reason is this, the builder mistook whim for genius, and 
ornament for taste: ho has even erred so much, that the very 
portico does not seem to be in the middle of the Church, and 
as to the steeple, it is stuck in like a wen to the rest of the 
building; then the execrable conceit of setting up the king on 
the top of it excites nothing but laughter in the ignorant, and 
contempt in the judge: in short, it is a lasting reflection on 
the fame of the architect, and the understanding of those who 
employed him.” 



153 


placed upon very small columns. The folow- 
ing epigram was written to satirise the bad 
taste of placing the statue on the apex of the 
tower:— 

“ The king of Great Britain was reckoned before 

The head of the church, by all Protestant people; 

His Bloomsbury subjects have made him still more. 

For with them he now is the head of the steeple.”* 

Bloomsbury Church was not consecrated till 
1730, 28th of January, although it was built 
six years earlier. Dr. Edward Vernon was 
the first appointed Rector, and the Rev. Mr. 
Knapper, Lecturer. 

The living, which is in the gift of the crown, 
was at first valued at £400, including fees, 
dues, &c.; but now, after the lapse of a cen¬ 
tury, it must be much more lucrative, especi¬ 
ally from the increased extent of the parish. 

It is worthy of remark, that there has been 
only three rectors of this parish during the long 
period of nearly ninety-eight years! 

1. Dr. Edward Vernon held the living till his death, which 

took place in March, 1761, having filled it thirty-one 
years. 

2. Dr. Charles Tarrant succeeded him, being presented 2nd 

April, 1761. He was a noted pluralist,t and died 22nd 
February, 1791, having been Rector thirty years. 

* Mr. Hucks, who was an eminent parishioner and vestry¬ 
man, and whose name is mentioned in connection with the work- 
house, &c. gave the above statue. Whether he conditioned it 
should be placed there, I have not learnt. 

f He had numerous preferments during his life, amongst 
which he held the following at the time of his decease: Dean 





154 


3. Dr. Thomas Willis was next appointed in 1791, and died 
5th November, 1827, after being Rector the longest of 
the three, namely thirty-six years.* * 

The Rev. Samuel Lonsdale, the present Rector, was promoted 
here in February, 1828. 

March 8th, 1730. The commissioners by 
another deed reciting in part the former, and 
stating that the Lord Bishop of London had on 
the preceding January 28th consecrated the 
new Church, which had now become a new 
parish, by the name of the Church and Parish 
of St. George, Bloomsbury ; did nominate and 
elect, with his consent, certain persons therein 
named, as and for vestrymen of the new pa¬ 
rish, together with the rector and churchwar¬ 
dens for the time being, being sufficient inha¬ 
bitants, &c. These were in number thirty-six, 
besides the rector and churchwardens.* 

of Peterborough, Subdean, Subchanter and Prebendary of 
Salisbury, Prebendary of Rochester, Rector of St. George 
Bloomsbury, Vicar of Wrotham in Kent, and Chaplain in 
Ordinary to his Majesty. 

* Dr. Thomas Willis was the son of the Rev. Francis Willis, 
who had the merit of curing the mental malady of King 
George the Third, in 1789. 

Dr. Willis, the Rector, was brought up at Queen’s College, 
Cambridge, and took his degree of L.L.D. in 1791, and was 
presented to this living the same year by Lord Chancellor 
Thurlow, and became Prebendary and Treasurer of Rochester, 
and Vicar of Wateringbury in Kent, all of which he held when 
he died. (See Gentleman’s Magazine , fyc,) 

* Among the names of the first vestrymen were, Wriothes- 
ley Duke of Bedford, Chief Justice Eyre, Baron Thompson, 
Sir James Hallet, Sir Conrad Springel, John Duke of Mon¬ 
tague, Sir John Cope, Sir Henry Featherstone, Sir William 





155 


By the authority of the same act, 10th of 
Anne, the commissioners purchased in 1713, a 
piece of ground for a church-yard, described 
as part of sixteen acres of meadow ground, and 
abutting east partly upon the queen’s highway 
leading from Gray’s Inn to Highgate. This 
ground, situate on the north of the Foundling, 
is now surrounded with buildings, and no one 
would imagine a public highway had ever 
existed here, were it not for the above recital. 
It consists of about three acres, and was divided 
into two cemeteries, of an acre and a quarter 
each, being apportioned to St. George the 
Martyr in Queen Square, then called St. George’s 
Square, which chapel was intended to be made 
a parochial Church, and the other portion to 
St. George’s Parish, Bloomsbury; the remain¬ 
ing part, about half an acre, was reserved for 
a common passage to the said church-yards 
respectively. 

Humphries, Sir Hans Sloane, and Mr. Serjeant Baynes, 
William Hucks the brewer, &c. The rest were mostly gen¬ 
tlemen and tradesmen of high respectability. 

The parochial customs, uses, &c. of the old parish being 
communicated to, and continued to the new one, under the act, 
the number of vestrymen at present necessary to constitute a 
vestry is thirteen at the least. 

Their first meeting took place nine days after their appoint¬ 
ment, when they elected a vestry clerk, parish clerk, lecturer, 
sexton, six pew openers, three bearers in ordinary, and three 
bearers extraordinary. 

At their second meeting, 24th of the same month, they 
settled the rents of the pews, appointed when 'prayers should 
be read, &c. 



156 


The freehold and inheritance of the new 
church-yard, with the mansion or dwelling 
house of the rector, are also by 1 Oth of Anne, 
vested in such rector and his successors, who 
are declared to be seized thereof, as in his and 
their demesne as of fee in right of the church, 
in such manner as other rectors are seized of 
their respective churches and glebes. 

There is a remarkable circumstance attached 
to this burial ground, which is the more worthy 
of notice on account of the horror excited re¬ 
cently by the Edinburgh murders. 

On the 9th of October, 1777, the grave¬ 
diggers here and others were detected in the 
act of stealing a corpse from this ground for 
dissection, the only instance of this kind then ever 
known, and which, in consequence, involved a 
difficulty in the decision of the law, from its 
being the first indictment on record for sueh 
crimes. 

John Holmes, the grave-digger of St. George, 
Bloomsbury, Robert Williams, his assistant, 
and Esther Donaldson, were tried under an 
indictment for a misdemeanour, before Sir J. 
Hawkins, Knight, chairman, at Guildhall, 
Westminster, 6th December, 1777, for stealing 
the dead body of Mrs. Jane Sainsbury, who 
died on the 9th October, same year, and was 
buried in the burial place of the said parish 
on the following Mopday. 


157 


Mr. Howarth, counsel for the prosecution, 
stated the case to the jury with great exactness 
and proper comments on such species of inhu¬ 
manity, observing, that by their verdict they 
would afford the court an opportunity of in¬ 
flicting a punishment on men whose crimes 
were shocking to humanity. 

Mr. Keys, counsellor for the prisoners, ob¬ 
jected to the indictment, and contended, that if 
the offence was not felony, it was nothing, for 
it could not be a misdemeanour, and therefore 
not cognizable by that court, or contrary to 
any law whatever. 

Sir J. Hawkins inquired of Mr. Howarth 
the reason for not indicting for a felony, as 
thereby the court was armed with power to 
punish as severely as such acts deserved. 

Mr. Howarth explained this, by saying, that 
to constitute a felony there must be a felonious 
act of taking away property ; and if the shroud 
or any other thing, such as the pillow, &c. or 
any part of it, had been stolen, it would have 
been a felony. In this case, he said, nothing 
of that kind had been done, the body was 
stolen only ; and though, in their hurry of con¬ 
veying away the deceased, they had torn off 
the shroud and left pieces behind in the church-* 
yard, yet there being no intention of taking 
them away, it was no felony, and therefore 
only a misdemeanour. 


158 


Mr. Keys again insisted, that it was no mis¬ 
demeanor; but Sir J. Hawkins very ably refuted 
him, showing, from the earliest ages, that the 
rights of sepulture in all countries and all reli¬ 
gions were deemed sacred, and the violation of 
them as species of sacrilege. He mentioned the 
time of the Romans as a period wherein the most 
sacred regard was held to burial places, and to 
the ashes of the dead; that it was dictated by 
intuitive religion, and an offence both under 
the public and the canon law, and particularly 
defined in all books of law, or otherwise, (and 
he said he had searched every book written on 
the subject with great care and attention), as a 
crime contra bonos mores ; and expressed his 
surprise, that any man in the capacity of a 
lawyer could stand up and say it was not a 
misdemeanour, when it was an offence against 
decency and good manners. Sir J. Hawkins 
also reminded Mr. Keys, that if his objection 
was good, it was premature, for it should come 
as a motion for an arrest of judgment. The 
trial then went on. 

Mr. Eustanston, who lives near the Found¬ 
ling Hospital deposed, that going by that hos¬ 
pital, "about eight o’clock in the evening, with 
some other gentlemen, they met the prisoner, 
Williams, with a sack on his back, and another 
person walking with him. Having some suspi¬ 
cion of a robbery, he stopped Williams, and 


159 


asked him, what he had got there ? to which he 
replied, “ I don’t knowbut that pulling the 
sack forcibly from his back, he begged to be let 
go, and said “ he was a poor man just come 
from harvest.” Mr. Eustanston then untied 
the sack, and to his astonishment, found the 
deceased body of a woman, her heels tied up 
tight behind her, her hands tied together behind, 
and cords round her neck, forcibly bending her 
head almost between her legs. The horror they 
were all in at such a sight, prevented them from 
securing the other person, who ran off; but 
they secured Williams, and took him to the 
round-house, where he was well known to be 
the assistant grave-digger to Holmes, and went 
by the name of Bobby. To make a more ef¬ 
fectual discovery, the next day they, with Mr. 
Evans, a constable, applied to Holmes as he 
was digging in the burial ground, who on being 
asked, denied all knowledge of Bobby or 
Williams, or of any such a man ; neither could 
he recollect if any body had been buried within 
the last few days, or, if there had, he could not 
tell where. However, by the appearance of 
the mould, they insisted on his running into 
the ground his long iron crow, and then they 
discovered a coffin, only six inches under ground, 
out of which the body had been taken. This 
appeared, on strict inquiry, to be the coffin of 
a Mrs. Guy, who had been buried on the pre- 


160 


ceding Wednesday, very deep. The gentle¬ 
men present, not yet satisfied, examined the 
ground further, and then discovered another 
coffin, out of which the body of Mrs. Jane 
Sainsbury had been stolen; and whilst this 
examination took place, Holmes was detected 
hiding in his pockets several small pieces of 
sfiroud, which lay contiguous to her grave. 

Mr. Sainsbury was under the painful neces¬ 
sity of appearing in court, and swearing, that 
the body found on Williams was his deceased 
wife; and indeed, poor man! he seemed but 
too much afflicted in giving his evidence. 

Mrs. Elizabeth Barret, who has the care of 
the other burial ground, proved, that Williams 
had been constantly employed by Holmes. 

Mr. Evans, the constable, also produced 
several sacks, marked H. Ellis, found in Holmes’ 
house; and this was brought as circumstantial 
evidence, as the sack in which Mrs. Sainsbury 
was tied, was also marked H. Ellis. 

Sir John Hawkins summed up the evidence, 
and the jury directly found the two men guilty; 
but acquitted Esther Donaldson. 

They were sentenced to six months impri¬ 
sonment, and to be each severely whipped, 
twice, in the last week of their confinement, 
from Kingsgate Street to Dyot Street, St. 
Giles’s, which is full half a mile ; but the 
whipping was afterwards remitted. 


161 


From the Vestry Minutes, 1st April, 1731, 
the Duke of Bedford gave 100 guineas to the 
parish, to purchase plate for the communion 
table. 

The commissioners had left the church withn 
out a pulpit, and a moveable one was now 
ordered, to try in what part of the church the 
minister could be best heard. 

December 3rd, 1731. A rate of six-pence 
in the pound was made on Bloomsbury parish, 
to defray the charges incurred about the new 
church and burial ground. 

A committee reported, that they had caused 
to be erected a gallery on the west side from 
north to south, at an expense of £140, which 
was paid by Mr. Milner, who would wait for 
re-payment thereof, with interest, until the 
rents of the pews in such gallery should be 
sufficient for that purpose. 

In respect to its other public buildings, the 
British Museum must ever hold the pre-emi¬ 
nence ; and as a great national establishment it 
is entitled to our notice, it being justly es¬ 
teemed the glory of Bloomsbury, and the pride 
of our country. 

Montague House, now the British Museum, 
was built previous to 1676, as we gather from 
Evelyn’s Diary. “May 11, 1676,” he says, 
“ I went to see Mr. Montague’s palace, near 
Bloomsbury, built by Mr. Hooke, a member of 

M 


162 


the Royal Society, after the French manner.” 
In another place he says, ‘‘January 19, 1686. 
This night was burnt to the ground, my Lord 
Montague’s palace in Bloomsbury, than which 
for paintings and furniture, there was nothing 
more glorious in England. This happened 
by the neglect of a servant airing, as they call 
it, some goods by the fire in a moist season; 
indeed, so wet and mild a season had scarce 
been seen in man’s memory.” 

There is another account of this calamitous 
fire, rendered so interesting by the pen of 
Lady Rachel Russell in her Letters, that I 
cannot forbear inserting it. It is part of a 
letter addressed to Doctor Fitzwilliam, and is 
dated January 22, 1686 :— 

“ If you have heard of the dismal accident in 
this neighbourhood, you will easily believe 
Tuesday night was not a quiet one with us. 

“ About one o’clock in the night I heard a 
great noise in the square, so little ordinary, I 
called up a servant, and sent her down to hear 
the occasion; she brought up a very sad one, 
that Montague House was on fire, and it was 
so indeed; it burnt with so great violence, the 
house was consumed by five o’clock. 

“ The wind blew strong this way, so that we 
lay under fire a great part of the time, the 
sparks and flames covering the house, and fil¬ 
ling the court. My boy awoke, and said he 


163 


was almost suffocated with smoke, but being 
told the reason, would see it, and so was satis¬ 
fied without fear; and took a strange bedfellow 
very willingly. Lady Devonshire’s youngest boy, 
whom his nurse had brought wrapt up in a 
blanket. Thus we see what a day brings 
forth, and how momentary the things are we 
set our hearts upon!” 

The present house was built on the former 
site, and on the same french plan, and by the 
same nobleman, the first Duke of Montague, 
who had been ambassador to the court of 
France. 

The second Duke and Duchess of Montague 
resided in one of the wings only of this edifice 
until their house was finished at Whitehall. 
After which, it remained unoccupied until it 
was converted to its present valuable pur¬ 
pose.* 

The British Museum had its origin in the 
circumstance of the celebrated naturalist and 
antiquarian, Sir Hans Sloane, in 1753, be¬ 
queathing to the public the invaluable collec¬ 
tion of curiosities contained in his museum, on 
condition of his executors being paid £20,000. 

* Montague House, when first built, was considered the 
most splendid private mansion in the metropolis. Ralph is 
certainly severe, however, on its architectural merits; whilst 
Lord Oxford says, in his anecdotes of paintings, “What it 
wants in grace and beauty, is compensated by the spaciousness 
and lofty magnificence of the apartments/’ 

M 2 



This was readily acceeded to by parliament, as 
also a resolution for providing a general reposi¬ 
tory for the better reception of this and other 
collections. 

One hundred thousand pounds was raised 
immediately by lottery for this noble purpose, 
and trustees from the most eminent persons in 
the kingdom were appointed to manage it. 

A short time after the passing the act, and 
while the trustees were at a loss where to pur¬ 
chase, or build a repository for the occasion, an 
offer was made by the heiresses of the Monta¬ 
gue family of their noble house and garden, 
which was purchased for £10,100, and £30,000 
more was expended in necessary repairs, and 
conveniences for the establishment. 

It was first opened in January, 1759, and 
contains at the present period, a wonderful 
collection of all that is curious in art and 
nature. Besides the museum of Sir Hans 
Sloane,* the Cottonian Library has been ad¬ 
ded, the Harlem Manuscripts, Sir William 
Hamilton’s antique vase, &c. the Townleian, 
Elgin, and other marbles ; Egyptian antiqui¬ 
ties, Hatchet’s and other minerals, &c. &c. and 
above all the splendid gift of the late King’s 
library, given by his present Majesty, George 
IV. Some extensive additions have been made 

* Sir Hans Sloane is said to have expended £50,000 on his 
collection. 



165 


to the original building for the reception of the 
Elgin marbles, &c. and also for the above 
library; and many expensive, yet praiseworthy 
improvements, have, been made since its first 
establishment. 

This library is said to consist of 185,000. 
volumes, and the room where they are now 
deposited is 300 feet in length, 42 wide,, and 
30 feet in height. The whole is elegantly 
fitted up, and supported by four massy columns 
of polished granite, which have a beautiful 
effect, and are greatly admired for the polish 
and noble style they exhibit. They are each 
in one ponderous stone, and in height about 
twenty-five feet, and in circumference at the 
base three feet six inches. 

It is intended gradually to erect an entire 
new museum, of which the east wing, which 
contains the library, will form a part; it is. 
altogether 500 feet in length, which includes a 
large hall to the south, where is deposited the 
numerous and invaluable collections of manu¬ 
scripts of the museum. This hall is said to be 
eighty feet by seventy feet, except the two. 
ends. The whole has been arranged under 
Mr. Smirke the architect. 

The articles contained in this noble reposi¬ 
tory filled, some years ago, a catalogue of thirty- 
eight volumes in folio, and eight in quartos we 
may notice a few of them. 


166 


Among them is a number of valuable and 
large collection of pamphlets, published in the 
reign of Charles I. given by his late Majesty ; 
the entire library of Clayton Cracherode, Es¬ 
quire, bequeathed in 1799; a Biographical 
collection, given by Sir William Musgrave; 
Garrick’s collection of Old Plays; a fine series 
of coins of our Saxon Kings, by Mr. Tyssen; 
curiosities brought from the South Pacific 
Ocean by captain Cook and others ; a number 
of antiquities obtained from Herculaneum, by 
Sir William Hamilton, &c. &c. 

In the court are the Egyptian monuments, 
the most curious of which is a beautiful large 
sarcophagus of variegated marble, covered with 
hieroglyphics, and believed to have been used 
as the exterior coffin of Alexander the Great. 
In the hall are two Egyptian monuments of 
black marble also, covered with hieroglyphics, 
which belonged to the Mausoleum of Cleopatra; 
with some large- pieces from the Giants’ Cause¬ 
way in Ireland, &c. 

There is among the artificial curiosities, a 
model in wax of the Temple of the Sybil at 
Tivoli; a model in wax of Laocoon and his 
Sons; a Chinese junk ; specimens of Raphael’s 
china model of the famous Barbirini vase; a 
model of a Persee burial ground; many ingeni¬ 
ous buttings in paper, &c. &c. 


167 


The coins and medals of Sir Hans Sloane's 
collection alone consist of 20,000 and upwards, 
and there are many more; and the figures, 
especially on those of Greece, are exquisitely 
beautiful. 

Here is the original Magna Charta of King 
John, written on a large roll of parchment, and 
part of the broad seal is preserved. It was 
damaged by the fire at the Cottonian Library 
at Westminster, in 1738. There is an immense 
number of manuscripts of high interest and 
value. 

The Elgin marbles, for which £35,000 was 
given by grant of parliament in 1817, are the 
remaining relics of the ancient temple of 
Theseus and Minerva, the works of Phidias 
and Praxiteles, which Canova especially ad¬ 
mired. It has, however, been truly observed, 
that it “ requires the eye of a critic, the fire of 
an artist and a philosopher, and the zeal of an 
antiquarian to discover and appreciate the 
beauty and value of these Grecian coins. >r 

This celebrated edifice, exclusive of its exten¬ 
sive offices, is 186 feet in length, and in height 
57 feet to the top of the cornice. 

By plans already made out, and approved of 
by the lords of the treasury and the trustees, 
it is intended to erect the new museum farther 
north, which will surround a quadrangular 


168 


court, and occupy all the present garden.* The 
east wing is already built.f 

The Russell Institution, Great Coram 
Street. This useful literary institution was 
originally built by Mr. Burton, in 1802, for an 
assembly room, and is the second building erected 
here for that purpose; the former one, when near¬ 
ly completed on the same plan, having been en¬ 
tirely destroyed by fire in 1803, Concerts and 
assemblies were held here several times after the 
completion of the present structure, under the 
patronage of the present Duke and Duchess of 
Bedford, who honoured them with their pre¬ 
sence ; but eventually, these were discon¬ 
tinued, and the building remained useless for 
some time. At length, in 1808, it was con¬ 
verted to its present useful purpose, and has 
been conducted, generally, with spirit and 
economy. It contains a tolerably extensive li¬ 
brary of valuable books, which the proprietors 
and subscribers have, with some exception, the 
privilege of perusing at their own houses. 
Periodical works of taste and literature, with 

* See plan of Parish. 

f On the west side a spacious building was erected undefr 
the architectural direction of G. Saunders, Esquire, for which 
£16,000 was voted in 1804, for the reception of the Townly 
marbles, Egyptian antiquities, &c. Attached to this is a 
temporary building by Mr. Smirke, in which the Elgin and 
Phigalean marbles are at present arranged and displayed. 
The whole of these are to be pulled down, and the west wing 
to be rebuilt to correspond with the east wing. 



169 


the morning and evening news-papers, are 
always to be found in the spacious and conve¬ 
nient reading rooms; and lectures on philoso¬ 
phy and science are often delivered in its 
theatre, fitted up for that purpose. The com¬ 
mittees of management deserve great praise 
for the care they have exercised in the appro¬ 
priation of its funds, whereby they have given 
permanency to this institution; whilst others, 
and especially the Surry, have been relinquished 
for want of similar prudence. 

It is a large structure, and has a handsome 
portico entrance, with Grecian Doric columns, 
and is 112 feet in length by 55 feet in depth. 

The number of original shares of this institu¬ 
tion were five hundred, which was subsequently 
extended to seven hundred, at twenty-five 
guineas each; beside which, there are many 
annual subscribers at three guineas each, who 
are entitled to nearly all the privileges of pro¬ 
prietors. The building was purchased of Mr. 
Burton, and was vested in three trustees in 
1808, who were the following respectable gen¬ 
tlemen :*— 

Sir Samuel Romilly, M.P.—William Dick¬ 
enson, M. P.—and Mr. Serjeant Lens; they 
now consist of four, William Dickenson, Esquire, 
M. P.—Sir James Scarlett, M. P.—Honourable 
Mr. Justice Gaselee—and Mr. Serjeant Storks. 


170 


The present librarian is E. W. Brayley, esq. 
F. A. S. well known as the author of Londiniana, 
History of Middlesex, &c. &c. 

The committee and managers comprise the 
names of twenty-four gentlemen of high literary 
attainments. 

We may here notice the Royal College 
of Surgeons, a fine building, situate on the 
south side of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. The Sur¬ 
geons were incorporated as one of the city 
companies, by Henry VIII. but in 1800 they 
received a royal charter, separating them from 
the Barbers, with whom they were before con¬ 
joined. The Surgeons’ Hall in front exhibits 
a portico of the Ionic order. The museum is a 
large room with galleries; and here are depo¬ 
sited the collections of the celebrated Hunter, 
purchased by government, and committed to 
the care of this college. Mr. Hunter’s object 
was to exhibit the gradations of nature from 
the simplest state of life, to the most perfect 
and complete of the animal creation. He had 
by force of genius carefully preserved in 
spirits, or in a dried state, the corresponding 
parts of animals’ bodies, that the various links 
in the chain of a perfect being may be clearly 
understood. These preparations are mostly 
displayed in the gallery. Among the curious 
exhibitions may be seen, the embalmed wife of 
the noted Martin Van Butchell. 


171 


Among the contributors to the museum, Sir 
William Blizard presented 500 specimens of 
natural and deceased structure. Sir E* Home 
presented it with specimens of natural history, 
and also contributed to the library. The dis¬ 
section of murderers, executed in London, is 
under the direction of the master and governor 
of this college. The museum may be seen, in 
parties, every Tuesday and Thursday (except 
in the months of May and June,) by previously 
leaving their names. 

In taking more minute notice of the improve¬ 
ments in Bloomsbury,— Russell Square de¬ 
mands our attention. This has a magnificent 
appearance, and is built, as before observed, on 
what was called in Strype’s time, 1720, the 
Southampton Fields, but subsequently the Long 
Fields. It is so extensive as to decide a com¬ 
mon observer, that it vies in that respect with 
Lincoln’s Inn Fields Square; nor is it far behind 
it when fairly compared. It has, from its first 
formation, been a favourite residence of the 
highest legal characters; and here merchants 
and bankers have seated themselves and fami¬ 
lies, the air and situation uniting to render it a 
pleasant retreat from the cares of business. 

The following dimensions given of this square 
are accurate, by which it will be seen that its 
four sides are unequal.— 


172 


Feet. Inches.. 

North side contains . 655 : 6 

South ditto . 665 : 3 

West ditto .... 672 : 7 

East ditto .. 667 : 1 

Total.... 2661 : 5 ft. square.* 

Lincoln’s Inn Square has been already stated 
at about 2,800 feet. 

If examined critically, there are several 
acknowledged circumstances in reference to the 
former square, which detracts from its beauty^ 
The pleasure ground stands in a hollow decli 
vity, which has many inconveniences, arising 
from the vast quantity of brick earth taken 
therefrom when the buildings were in progress, 
and which ought to have been replenished. 
The elevation of the north and west sides are 
greatly exalted above those of the east and 
south, which has a bad effect to the eye, and 
above ail, renders the carriage pavement so 
unequal, that no art can prevent its overflowing 


* Mr. Britton, who has published so many useful and 
elegant works on architecture, &c. has given the dimensions of 
several of the fashionable and modern squares as follows :— 


Belgrave Square. 


Eaton ditto . 


.... 371 

Cadogau ditto . 



Grosvenor ditto . 

. 654 . 

.... 654 

Portman ditto . 

. 500 . 


Bryanstone ditto .... 

_ 814 .... 


Montague ditto. 

.... 820 .... 

























173 


with wet in various parts, at certain seasons of 
the year.* 


* Baltimore House, since the formation of this square, has 
been divided into two splendid residences, after standing alone 
during forty years, comprising, with its gardens, a considera¬ 
ble portion of its east side. 

Soon after its erection and occupation by Lord Baltimore, it 
acquired a celebrity dishonourable to that nobleman, by a cri¬ 
minal occurrence which made a considerable sensation through¬ 
out the kingdom at the period alluded to, and which, as con¬ 
nected with the history of Bloomsbury, we will here briefly 
notice. 

Lord Baltimore married the daughter of the Duke of Bridge- 
water, but his unbounded attachment for women, rendered the 
nuptial connection a scene of unhappiness, he keeping agents 
for the infamous purpose of providing him with fresh faces in 
various parts of the metropolis. 

Hearing, through one of these (a Mrs. Harvey,) in Novem¬ 
ber, 1767, that a young female of the name of Woodcock, who 
kept a milliner’s shop on Tower Hill, was handsome, and 
suited to his ignoble purpose, he went there several times 
under pretence of purchasing laced ruffles and sundry other 
articles, until at length she was conveyed into his lordship’s 
carriage by Isaacs, a jew, who had become an accomplice 
with Mrs. Harvey in the vile conspiracy. Under pretence 
of taking her to a lady who would give her orders for milli¬ 
nery, these wretches drove her rapidly through the metro¬ 
polis with the glasses drawn up, and it being dark, she was 
unaware of its being other than a hackney coach, until, at 
length, they arrived at the court yard of a house of magnitude 
and splendour. 

She was now ushered, by Mrs. Harvey, through a suit of 
rooms elegantly furnished, when Lord Baltimore made his 
appearance, at which she became greatly alarmed on recol¬ 
lecting his calling upon her at Tower Hill. 

Under pretext of his being steward to the lady she was to 
be introduced to, she became more composed on his promising 
to fetch her; and going out, he soon returned with Mrs. Grif- 
finburgh, telling her she was the lady who had ordered the 



174 


After all, it has claims to admiration; and it 
obtained a great acquisition by the statue, 

goods. This was another of his creatures, and she detained 
her, under various pretences, till a late hour, when she became 
importunate to depart. 

Keeping up the character of a steward, he lock her o.ver 
several apartments to delay time, and afterwards insisted on 
her staying supper; and being alone with her, he took such 
indecent liberties as induced her to resent the insult, and 
when Doctor Griffinburgh, husband to the woman of that name, 
and Mrs. Harvey, came in to assist his lordship, she contested 
the matter with them all, and forced her way to the door, 
insisting upon going home. 

At a late hour she was conducted to a bed-room, over¬ 
whelmed with distress, where she continued walking about till 
morning, lamenting her unhappy situation, the two women 
being in bed in the same room. 

In the morning she was conducted to breakfast, but refused 
to eat, and demanded her liberty, weeping incessantly, whilst 
his lordship was vowing excessive love, and urging it as an 
excuse for detaining her ; and whenever she went towards the 
window, to make her distress evident to the casual passenger, 
the women forced her away. 

The details of his succeeding conduct are of the grossest 
description; soothing her and threatening her by turns, during 
several hours ; and at length, under pretence of taking her to 
her father if she would dry her eyes and put on clean linen, 
supplied by Mrs. Griffiuburgh; she was hurried into a coach 
and conveyed to Epsom, where his lordship had a seat, accom¬ 
panied by the doctor and the two infamous women. 

Here his wicked intentions were forcibly accomplished, 
the house being better adapted by its loneliness for his dis¬ 
graceful purpose. 

At length her friends attained a clue to her detention, after 
enduring the most painful anxiety at her absence, during about 
a fortnight, and a writ of Habeas Corpus being obtained, she 
was restored to her liberty. Lord Baltimore and his two 
female accomplices were tried at Kingston, March 25, 1768, 
and were acquitted through an informality in Miss Woodcock’s 
deposition, arising, evidently, from the agitation of her mind. 

The title has since become extinct. 



175 


erected on the south side, of the late Francis 
Duke of Bedford, who died so prematurely, 
and whose memory has been greatly lament¬ 
ed. This statue is of bronze, and stands just 
within the rails at the centre, and opposite 
Bedford Place, and seems to be looking towards 
the spot where his family mansion stood, whilst 
viewing, at the same time, the statue of his 
much loved friend, Charles James Fox, which 
is fixed in an opposite direction in Bloomsbury 
Square. 

It is the work of Westmacott, on whom it 
reflects the highest credit, for elevating the 
character of Britain in chisel and allegorical 
statuary. The pedestal is of massy Scotch 
granite, and with the statue of his Grace (which 
is nine feet high,) measures twenty-seven feet 
in height. His Grace reposes one arm on a 
common plough, the left holding the gifts of 
Ceres, to mark his agricultural pursuits; whilst 
the four seasons are personified in the endearing 
semblance of children playing round his feet; 
and to the four corners are attached, bulls 
heads in very high relief. Herds of cattle are 
seen in recumbent postures, and rural subjects 
in basso relievo , representing the preparation for 
the ploughman’s dinner, and the wife on her 
knees attending her culinary department, a 
youth sounding a horn, rustics, and a team of 
oxen. Reapers and gleaners are delineated in 


176 


their various employ ; and a young female in the 
centre, looks comely and graceful, as a village 
favourite. These enrichments, the four seasons, 
and the duke’s statue, are all successfully cast 
in bronze, and are said to preserve the spirit of 
the original model.* 


* Whilst on this part of my subject, it is natural to revert 
to a ^former period; when, in 1800, these fields lay waste 
and useless, until you approached some nursery grounds near 
the New Road to the north, and a piece of ground enclosed for 
the Toxopholite Society towards the north-west, near the 
back of Gower Street. The remainder was the resort of de¬ 
praved wretches, whose amusements consisted chiefly in 
fighting pitched battles, and other disorderly sports, especially 
on the sabbath day. Often did I walk over this spot, to view, 
with delight, the former residence of the illustrious martyr of 
liberty, Lord William Russell; and I still retain it in my mind, 
having a perfect recollection of its venerable grandeur, as I 
surveyed it in the distance, shaded with the thick foliage of 
magnificent lime trees. The fine verdant lawn extended a 
considerable distance between these, and was guarded by a 
deep ravine to the north from the intrusive footsteps of the 
daring. Whilst, in perfect safety were grazing, various breeds 
of foreign and other sheep, which, from their singular appear¬ 
ance, excited the gaze and admiration of the curious. All this, 
and much more, has disappeared, and nothing remains but the 
remembrance of them. 

Tradition had given to the superstitious at that period, a 
legendary story from remote times, of two brothers who foughtiu 
this field so ferociously as to destroy each other; since which, 
their footsteps, formed from the vengeful struggle, were said 
to remain, with the indentations produced by their advancing 
and receding, nor could any grass or vegetable ever be produced 
where these forty footsteps were thus displayed. This ex¬ 
traordinary arena was said to be at the extreme termination 
of the north-east end of Upper Montague Street; and, profiting 
by the fiction, the Miss Porters have recently written and 



177 


Bloomsbury Square we have already spo¬ 
ken of, but we advert to it again, principally, to 
notice the statue of the Right Honourable 
Janies Fox, which is here set up. Westmacott 
was the artist, and it has been much admired as 
a work executed in his best style. It is of 
colossal dimensions, being to a scale of nine 
feet in height, and is executed in bronze, and 
elevated upon a pedestal of granite, surmount¬ 
ing a spaciousbase formed of several steps, or gra¬ 
dations. The pedestal and statue is about seven¬ 
teen feet in height, and the latter is placed in a 

published an ingenious romance thereon, entitled, “ Coming 
Out, or the Forty Footsteps.” 

At a later period, anno 1801, part of these fields became the 
scene of martial deeds, when we were menaced with invasion by 
Buonaparte. On this occasion Britons were aroused by the 
puny threats of the blustering foe, and a great portion ofj-them 
flew everywhere to arms, and numerous volunteer corps sprung 
up, and formed in defence of their country. The loyalty and 
enterprize of Mr. James Burton would not allow him to be 
the last in a cause so laudable; and under his auspices a race 
of hardy mechanics, mostly under his employ and influence, 
united together for the same purpose, who were denominated 
“ The Loyal British Artificers.” At first these consisted of a 
phalanx of upwards of 1000, of which I became one, anxious, 
like them, to march in an attitude of resistance to the enemy, 
with Colonel Burton at our head, should he dare to violate 
our shores. 

On these fields, still uncovered with buildings, and especi¬ 
ally on the Toxopholite Ground, we regularly mustered for 
exercise, and here have I undergone excessive fatigue by 
going through the arduous manoeuvres of a light company 
soldier, which I was not then unfitted for in bulk and size. 
We continued to form together as long as our services were 
thought useful and necessary. 

x 



178 


sitting position, habited in a consular robe, the 
ample folds of which pass over the body, and, 
falling from the seat, gives breadth and effect to 
the whole. The likeness of Mr. Fox is well 
preserved, and the right hand is supporting 
Magna Charta, whilst the left is in repose. 
The head is inclined forward, expressive of 
attention, firmness, and complacency; whilst 
dignified serenity is depicted on his counte¬ 
nance.* 


* It was in this square that the ruffian hand of lawless 
bigotry wreaked its vengeance against the great and venerable 
Lord Mansfield, in 1780. His lordship's elegant mansion 
was plundered and burnt to ashes, together with an invaluable 
collection of scarce manuscripts, notes on law cases, pictures, 
books, deeds, &c. The mob had been engaged in the work of 
destruction four days, without meeting with resistance; 
such was the intimidation and panic which prevailed in the 
metropolis at this juncture. Hence, however, a small body of 
the military opposed it, headed by a civil magistrate, who 
read the Riot Act, and afterwards ordered the detachment to 
fire, by which six men and one woman were killed, and several 
other persons wounded. Many of the mob, having made their 
way into his lordship’s cellars, suffered from intoxication. 
The case of the female who was killed on this occasion was 
most pitiable. She lived servant to a Mr. Dubois in the 
square, and was going towards the street door, when she was 
killed by a ball which passed through it into the passage; 
Several bullets, also, entered the parlour window at the same 
time, yet no other person was hurt, though several were in 
the room. 

This occurrence having taken place nearly forty-nine years 
ago, it may not prove uninteresting to mention, that the 
mansion of Lord Mansfield stood on the site of three houses 
since erected, on the north-east corner of this square, which 
now includes one in Bloomsbury Place. 



179 


Torrtngton Square is also on the Duke of 
Bedford’s estate, and is lately in a state of 
completion. It contains seventy houses of a 
moderate size, and is so pleasantly situate oil 
an elevated healthy spot, as to have been filled 
with occupants, as fast as it progressed in 
building. Its form is rectangular, or what is 
called, improperly, a long square; and it has 
proved a very successful speculation to its very 
industrious and worthy builder* Mr* Sims. 

Brunswick Square is entirely on the 
Foundling Hospital estate, and contains only 
twelve houses in Bloomsbury Parish, the re¬ 
maining thirty-eight being in that of Pnncras* 
Its east side is formed by the west front of the 
hospital and its gardens* which building was 
erected in 1734, under the direction of Mr* 
Gibbs, an architect. The square is smaller 
than many others in the metropolis* but elegant 
and pleasant, and from its near approach to 
the city, it has always been most respectably 
inhabited by merchants and others. 

Among the principal streets newly formed 
in this parish, we may enumerate that part of 
Guildford Street leading into Russell Square on 
the east side; Keppel Street leading into the 
west side; Bedford Place, which connects it¬ 
self with Bloomsbury Square, and enters Rus¬ 
sell Square in a northern direction; Upper 
Bedford Place on the opposite side, which con- 

N 2 


180 


needs itself to the north, with Tavistock Square 
(in Pancras parish), and Russell Square to the 
south ; Montague Place, which runs in a paral¬ 
lel line with Keppel Street toward the south 
forming a junction with Bedford Square and 
Russell Square; west and east Montague 
Streets, which take a direction from the south¬ 
west corner of Russell Square into Great Rus¬ 
sell Street in a south line, and on the opposite 
side of the square in a northern line into a new 
square now forming, to be called Rothsay 
Square. At the east side of Russell Square, 
Bernard Street forms a junction with Bruns¬ 
wick Square, and in a northerly direction from 
the commencement of this street is Woburn 
Place, a fine street which leads again into Ta¬ 
vistock Square. Great Goram Street opens 
itself out of Woburn Place, nearly at the cen¬ 
tre of the east side, leading into Brunswick 
Square; and, finally, Southampton Row, (the 
west side only of which is new), takes a con¬ 
trary direction from that of Woburn Place on 
the south, leading into King Street and Hol- 
born.* 


* An eccentrical lady formerly resided on the east side of 
this row, whose death and other particulars were announced 
as follows :—“ Died, 16th January, 1792, at her house, 
Southampton Row, Bloomsbury, Mrs. Griggs. Her execu¬ 
tors found in her house eighty-six living and twenty-eight 
dead cats. A black servant has been left c£l50 per annum, 
for the maintenance of himself and the surviving grimalkins 



181 


These are the principal streets and avenues 
erected since 1802, but there are others con¬ 
nected with them, and intermediate, which are 
both respectable and ornamental. 

In contemplating this vast accumulation of 
houses, and particularly when reviewing them 
as forming a small portion of what have been 
built within a few years in the metropolis, as¬ 
tonishment cannot but be excited to an extreme 
degree. 

Our former monarchs, Elizabeth and James, 
who issued proclamations to restrain the ex¬ 
tension of their capital, as involving evils of the 
greatest magnitude, would indeed be surprised 


The lady was single, and died worth <£30,000. Mrs. Griggs, 
on the death of her sister, a short time ago, had an addition 
to her fortune; she set up her coach, and went out almost every 
day airing, but suffered no male servant to sleep in her house. 
Her maids being tired frequently of their attendance on such 
a numerous household, she was induced at last to take a black 
woman to attend and feed them. This black woman had lived 
servant to Mrs. Griggs many years, and had a handsome an¬ 
nuity given her to take care of the cats. She also left some 
annuities for life to several friends (relatives she had none.) The 
residue of her paternal estates to be applied to the benefit of 
poor widows and maidens of sixty years of age—the widows 
of seamen and their daughters to be preferred.” 

In Aikin’s Life of Howard, page 159, we have another in¬ 
stance of a person of the name of Norris of Hackney, who 
from the multitude of cats assembled under his roof, acquired 
the name of Cat Norris. The attachment of Mahometans to 
cats is well known; amidst their disregard to the human spe¬ 
cies in the hospitals, Mr.'Howard found an Asylum for Cats. 
(See Annual Register and Gentleman’s Magazine.) 



182 


could they behold what has been effected 
within the last 200 years, and without the bane¬ 
ful results they so much deprecated. Sir Wil¬ 
liam Petty ascribed much of the increase in his 
time to the general introduction of brick build¬ 
ings by the Earl of Arundel, by which the 
growth of London, both in extent and beauty, 
was prodigious.* From 1600 it doubled every 
forty years, so that in 1680 it contained four 
times as many inhabitants as at the beginning 
of the century. What would this eminent cal¬ 
culator say now ? 

In a collection of Epigrams written by Tho¬ 
mas Freeman, a native of Gloucester, and pub¬ 
lished in 1614, 4to. under the title of “ Rub 


“ In the 17th of Edward IV. Sir Ralph Jocelyne, the Lord 
Mayor, obtained an Act of Common Council for repairing the 
city wall betwixt Aldgate and Aldersgate, For 4 the more 
furtherance of the worke/ also as Stowe records, ‘he caused the 
Morefielde to be searched for clay, and willed bricke to be made 
and brent there, and likewise caused chalke to be brought out 
of Rente, and to be brent in lime in the same Morefielde.” 
This, says Mr. Bray ley, is one of the earliest notices of the 
use of brick in London that occurs, though soon afterwards 
the larger houses were began to be built principally with this 
material. (See Beauties of England and Wales , 10 th vol . 
part 2, page 33.) 

We learn from Matthew Paris, that in the reign of Edward 
III. William de Trumpington, Abbot of St. Albans, bought a 
house, or rather a court of houses, in London, as extensive as 
a great palace, with chapel, stable, garden, a well, &c. for one 
hundred marks, (1314), to which he added fifty marks more 
for improvements. Matt. Paris, page 125-6, 



183 


and a Great Cast,” are the following lines' 
called “ London’s Progresse.” 

All the prophetical annunciations of this ef¬ 
fusion, except the union of Hoxton with High- 
gate, have already been accomplished and by 
the forming of a new road, a few years ago,, 
across the enclosed fields from the Haberdasher’s 
Hospital to Lower Holloway, and by the pro¬ 
gressive increase of buildings up Highgate Hill, 
the whole prediction is in a rapid course of 
fulfilment* 

“ Why bow now, Babell, whilt thou build ? 

Tftie old Holborne, Charing-Cross, the Strand,. 

Are going to St. Giles’s-in-the-Field : 

St. Katerine, she takes Wapping by the hand,. 

And Hogsdon will to Hy-gate ere’t be long. 

London has got a great way from the streame, 

I think she means to go to Islington, 

To eat a dish of strawberries and creame. 

The city , s sure in progresse, I surmise. 

Or going to revell it in some disorder 

Without the walls, without the liberties. 

Where she neede feare nor Mayor nor Recorder* 

Well, say she do, Hwers pretty, yet His pity, 

A Middlesex Bailiff should arrest the citty.” 

Bray ley's Londiniana . 

The earliest places of worship we know of, 
exclusive of the churches, are the three follow¬ 
ing : 

1. The private Chapel of Southampton House 
is mentioned in an entry in the churchwardens 
book literally as follows:— 


184 


“ 1699. Received of the r. lionble the Countess of Southton, 

money given in her Chapel at the Holy Communion £8.”* 

2. Joseph Read’s Presbyterian Chapel, 
which was situate in Dyot Street, and was 
built for him about 1672. He was born at 
Kidderminster, and was in great esteem with 
the celebrated Baxter, and was one of the 
ejected ministers with him, having had the 
living of Whitley in Worcestershire. He was 
taken up under the Conventicle Act in 1677, 
and endured much persecution, but was restored 
to his people, who were numerous, on the ac¬ 
cession of James II. It was afterwards used 
as a Chapel of Ease to St. Giles’s Church from 
1684 till 1708, at a rental of £30. No vestige 
of it now remains. 

3. Great Queen Street Chapel. In 
] 692, an inquiry was set on foot to ascertain 
what number of pews would be taken by the 

* The Countess of Southampton mentioned here was the 
second wife of the Lord Treasurer Southampton, and appears 
to have survived him some years, and to have resided at 
Southampton House, Bloomsbury Square. She was the Lady 
Leigh, daughter of Francis Leigh, Lord Dunesmore, created 
Earl of Chichester, 20th Charles I. and the mother (by Lord 
Southampton) of his second daughter, Elizabeth Wriothesley 
(who was co-heiress with his oilier daughter. Lady Rachel 
Russell, by his first Countess, Rachel de Massay.) This 
Elizabeth, the daughter, married first Joceline Percy, the 
eleventh and last Earl of Northumberland, and afterwards to 
Ralph Earl, and in 1706, Duke of Montague, the founder of 
Montague House, by which means the ducal families of Bed-, 
ford and Montague became nearly related. 



185 


gentry of Lincoln’s Inn Fields and its vicinity, 
in case a new chapel should be erected in that 
neighbourhood. Subscriptions were solicited 
in 1704 for the purpose, and in 1706 a treaty 
was entered into, which afterwards broke off, 
for purchasing one lately erected by one Wil¬ 
liam Raguley (Baguely) according to Strype, 
who adds, that he, pretending to be a minister 
of the church of England, preached here with¬ 
out licence or authority, consecrated the Holy 
Sacrament, and administered the same. Where¬ 
fore the Bishops of London and Peterborough 
caused two declarations to be read therein, 
which eventually silenced him. On the site 
where this stood has been built a large elegant 
Chapel, at a considerable expense, for the use 
of the Wesleyan Methodists, which is well at¬ 
tended, and often crowded to excess. 

Besides these we may enumerate, in St. 
Giles’s parish, the dissenting Chapels in Gate 
Street, in Little Wild Street, in West Street, 
in Dudley Court, Eglise Suisse Chapel near 
Moor Street, and the Catholic Chapel in Duke 
Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. A new Church 
is now erecting in Little Queen Street. 

Bedford Chapel is the only ecclesiastical 
establishment in the parish of Bloomsbury, ex¬ 
clusive of the Church. It is situate in Char¬ 
lotte Street, on the west side, and was first 


186 


opened for divine worship in 1771, and it is 
well attended by respectable inhabitants. 

The Rev. Dr. John Trusler was the first 
clergyman, and a party in the lease granted by 
John, Duke of Bedford, of the ground on which 
it is built, and it has been in much repute for 
eminent preachers, among whom was the un¬ 
fortunate Dr. Dodd. 

There is also a Baptist Chapel in Eagle Street, 
and another of the same persuasion in Keppel 
Street; and these, with the Church, comprise 
all the places of worship in Bloomsbury. It is 
however in contemplation to build an ecclesi¬ 
astical Chapel in Rothsay Square. 

Considering the extent and population of 
these parishes, it is a remarkable circumstance 
how few places of worship they contain, and 
especially in reference to Bloomsbury. 

We have little means of acquiring a know¬ 
ledge of the population of this district at an 
early period of its history. The grants of land 
and tenements to the hospital, added to the 
occupants under that institution in various 
parts of it, is the only date to calculate upon in 
modern times. 

^ It is supposed, from records extant, that the 
granters of estates, in which the hospital had a 
property in the two manors of St. Giles and 
Bloomsbury, in the commencement of the four¬ 
teenth century, (Henry V.) amounted to some- 


187 


what more than a hundred. To these were to 
be added the hospital inmates, and those who 
were tenants, or holders of estates, in which it 
had no interest. In this view the whole popu¬ 
lation has been estimated at this period at 
about one thousand persons. 

About 150 years afterwards, namely, in the 
reign of Edward VI. the houseling people was 
stated at 305, (seepage 45) which, if it means 
only those old enough and qualified to receive 
the sacrament, we have no means of guessing 
the probable number of inhabitants. Parton 
tells us, that the transfer of the hospital operated 
much to the detriment of the village; conse¬ 
quently, we may presume that it had not 
greatly increased, if at all, during several 
reigns, nor does the neighbourhood seem to 
have augmented to any great extent until 
about anno 1600. 

The restrictions on building, doubtless, had 
an influence at successive periods on the local 
population, but as the restraints ceased it in¬ 
creased rapidly in the suburb villages, among 
which that of St. Giles stood prominent, and 
it has been seen that, in 1711, a vast augmen¬ 
tation had been made. 

The statement, by order of parliament, gave 
to the parish 2,999 housekeepers, whereof 269 
were gentlemen, 923 tradesmen, and 807 of a 
poorer class, making about seven persons to 


188 


each house, the total being about 21,000 inha¬ 
bitants. 

The following is the most correct account of the 
population, at different periods, that I have been 
able to collect, including the number of houses 
where anything like certainty could be ob¬ 
tained. 

1360. Edward III.’s reign, according to conjecture, 1000 
inhabitants. 

1550. Edward VI.’s reign, 305 houseling people. Number 
of inhabitants doubtful. 

1623. James I’s reign, 879 houses, 2000 inhabitants. (See 
pages 94 and 100.) 

1680. Charles II.’s reign, 2,000 houses, probably 10,000 
inhabitants. 

1711. Queen Anne’s reign, 2,999 houses, 21,000 inhabitants.* 
1801. George III.’s reign, 3861 houses, census 36,502 inha¬ 
bitants 

1811. George III.’s reign, 4,871 houses, census 48,536 in¬ 
habitants. 

1821. George III.’s reign, 4914 houses, census 51,793 in¬ 
habitants 

The census is now taken every ten years, the 
last in 1821, but certainly not with precision. 
In 1811 the number of houses is stated too 
high, or how does it happen that they have 
increased only to 4996 to this period, 1829, 
about seventeen years ? 


* The Archbishop of York affirmed in his protest, that the 
number amounted to 40,000, which appears to be an excessive 
calculation, it giving nearly fourteen to each house ; a crite¬ 
rion totally inconsistent. 



189 


It seems also strange that in 1711, the num¬ 
ber of inhabitants should be in the ratio of 
seven to each house, whilst in 1801 they are 
taken at nearly nine and a half. In 1811 the 
ratio is more than ten to each house (ten would 
give 48,280.) 

The census of 1821 gives us, upon the whole 
number of houses more than ten and a half to each. 

Among the discrepancies which I cannot here 
reconcile, may be noticed the statement sub¬ 
mitted by the Rectors and Mr. L. Hansard, to 
Messrs. Easterby, Tuely, and Taylor, on the 
tenth of July last (1829,) which reduces 
the number of assessed houses from 4,996 to 
4,936, this being the period most essential to 
our views of parochial policy, and subject to 
our future strictures and remarks. The follow¬ 
ing is the statement alluded to :—• 


Rental; 

£20 

£20 to 

£30 to 

c£50 to 

100 and 

150 & 

Numberofkouses 

& under. 

£30 

o£50 

«£ioo 

o£l50 

upwds. 

in St. Giles’s 2,980 

781 

673 

827 

443 

93 

63 

In St. George 1,956 

409 

212 

403 

576 

217 

139 

Total* 4,936 

1190 

885 

1230 

1019 

310 

202 


* Of all the subjects comprised in Political Economy, 
population seems the least understood, and it is really amusing 
to notice the clashing opinions of philosophers who have writ¬ 
ten upon it. Malthus has advanced an opinion, that mankind 
increases in geometrical proportion, as the numbers 1,2, 4, 8, 
16, &c; whilst subsistence cannot increase faster than the 
numbers 1,2, 3, 4, 5, &c. which is arithmetical proportion. 
Hence he infers that the whole population of a state may be 
doubled every twenty-five years, a conclusion totally at 




190 


The following statement, taken from the 
census of 1821, will show that the the united 
parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and Blooms¬ 
bury, by comparison, is only inferior to the two 
largest parishes in the metropolis, Mary-la- 
’ bonne and St. Pancras, in population :— 


Mary-la-bonne.. 96,340 

Pancras ....*. 71,838 

St. Giles and Bloomsbury ... 51,793 


variance with experience, and yet he has obtained many 
disciples and excited much alarm. Nothing is so easy as 
the instituting calculations on any assumed hypothesis; and 
thus Wallace amused himself in exhibiting the geometric in¬ 
crease of mankind in the antediluvian world. 

It has been argued against Malthus, that by an inverse ra¬ 
tio food increases beyond the people by a transcendant geo¬ 
metry, and that the food of man may be doubled a thousand 
times in every twenty-five years. A herring has 40,000 eggs, 
a cod fish ten times that number ; and as to animals, in 1788, 
two bulls and three cows strayed away in New South Wales, 
which, in seven years, increased to 1000. 

As to the increase of grain, it is incredible ; M.P. Knetez- 
mar. Counsellor of State to the King of Prussia, has given 
astonishing proofs of this from experiments he made; and let 
it be remembered, that men live on fish, flesh, and grain. 
Ensor considers the geometrical and arithmetical ratios of 
Malthus jargon, and he contends that that nation whose peo¬ 
ple live longest, will be most numerously inhabited; yet Blu- 
menback calculates, that not more than seventy-three in a 
thousand die of old age. Bolingbroke insisted, that the in¬ 
crease of inhabitants is always advantageous to any state; 
Swift argued, that the people constitute the undoubted riches 
of a country ; Sir James Stewart, that the increase of num¬ 
bers in a state shows youth and vigour; Dagge and Palev, 
that population is nationally superior to every other advan¬ 
tage; and Mr. Bentharp, in the language of Monsieur Dumont, 
considers it “ la force et la richesse d’une nation.” 







191 


Chapter VI. 


Historical Sketches of Pauperism—Resort of 
Irish Poor to St . Giles’s—-Curious Items of 
Relief—Depravity of Mendicants—Monastic 
Support — Poor Laws — Legislative Difficul¬ 
ties—Parish Officers — St. Giles's Workhouse , 
%c. <$c. 

Partox tells us, “ that in remote times, St. 
Giles’s parish contained no greater proportion 
of poor than other parishes of a similar extent 
and population; the introduction of Irish men¬ 
dicants and other poor of that description, for 
which it afterwards became so noted, is not to 
be traced farther back than the time of Queen 
Elizabeth.” 

Strype remarks, “ that when London began 
to increase in population, there was observed 
to be a confluence here out of the countries of 
such persons as were of the poorer sorts of 
trades and occupations; who, because they 
could not exercise them within the jurisdiction 
of the city, followed them within the suburbs ; 
therefore the queen, as well as forbidcling 


192 


the further erection of new buildings, ordered 
all persons within three miles of any of the 
gates of the city to forbear from letting or 
settling, or suffering any more than one family 
only to be placed in one house.” 

Other proclamations of a similar import were 
issued, and in one of them, dated 1583, it was 
set forth “ that great multitudes of people were 
brought to inhabit in small rooms, whereof a 
great part were seen very poor, yea, such as 
must live by begging or worse means, and they 
heaped up together in one house or small tene¬ 
ment; wherefore, for offences of this sort, 
namely, of increase of many indwellers, or as 
they be commonly called inmates or under setters , 
which had been suffered within the last seven 
years, the proper officers were to see the same 
redrest.” 

A subsequent proclamation stated, “ that 
there did haunt and repair a great multitude of 
wandering persons, many of whom were from 
Ireland, with whom were also many other 
like vagrants, and persons of that nation ; many 
of whom haunted about the court under pre¬ 
tence of suits, &c. and who mixed with dis¬ 
banded soldiers from the lew countries, and 
other impostors, did infest the city by day as 
common beggars, or did commit at night rob¬ 
beries and outrages” These were ordered, as 
before, to be suppressed. 


193 


It has been inferred that these complaints 
applied particularly to St. Giles’s parish, from 
its immediate vicinity to the court, only a few 
fields then intervening, and this conclusion has 
been confirmed by the following extracts from 
Stowes Survey :—“ by the care of Fleetwood, 
the recorder, and other magistrates acting under 
these proclamations, there were few rogues in 
goal; and Westminster and the Duchy of Lan¬ 
caster, St. Giles’s, High Holborn, St. John 
Street, and Islington, great harbours for such 
Tnisdemeaned persons , were never so well or 
quiet, for rogue, nor masterless man dared now 
once appear in these parts,” 

Rogue and beggar were, in those days, sy- 
nonimous terms, as the following anecdote from 
the same useful writer will exemplify. “ Upon 
occasion of a great parcel of rogues encompas¬ 
sing the queen (Elizabeth), while riding out 
one evening towards Islington, to take the air, 
(which seemed to put her into some disturbance) 
notice was given to Fleetwood, the recorder, 
who did that night send out warrants into these 
quarters and in Westminster and the Duchy; 
and in the morning he went out himself, and 
took seventy-four rogues, some of whom were 
blind, and yet great usurers and very rich, 
who were all examined together at Bride¬ 
well, and received there substantial payment.” 
(Strypes Stowe.) 

o 


194 


But the evil thus curbed was far from being 
suppressed, for we learn that James I. found it 
expedient also to issue out proclamations against 
inmates and multitudes of dwellers in straight 
rooms and places about the metropolis, and 
commanding that newly-raised dwellings should 
be pulled down, to prevent the too great influx 
of strangers and others. Such are the causes 
from which may be dated the original settle¬ 
ment of a numerous body of poor in this pa¬ 
rish ; that is to say, its being near the court, 
and its being a convenient suburb village for 
loose and idle persons to harbour in. 

Neither Irish poor or aliens are mentioned 
by name in the parish books until 1640, at 
which time the earliest churchwardens’ accounts 
commenced, but they were included, no doubt, 
under the general designation of inmates , un¬ 
dersetters , new comers, 8$c. The vestry minutes 
contain some curious entries on these subjects, 
a few of which Mr. Parton has favoured us 
with:— 

“ Ordered, that the beadles do attend every Sunday, to 
give an account of inmates, and who take them in, and to 
take up all idle persons . And on pain of neglect, for the 
first offence, to lose their arrears of salary ; and for the second 
offence, to be turned out, and to be incapable of being re¬ 
chosen .” 

“ 1630. On consideration of the statute, 43rd of Elizabeth, 
which directs the raising of a stock to set the poor to work ; 
and that the churchwardens and collectors of the poor should 


195 


once every month resort to church, and there, on the Sabbath 
day in the afternoon, take some good order for the relief of 
the poor, it was admitted ‘ that the relief of the poor is much 
lesse than it would be, if so many new comers into the parish 
did not find entertainment, as they doe, being most of them 
dicellcrs, or inmates, or lodgers ;* and it was ordered, f that 
the constables and their deputys should give notice to the 
churchwardens and collectors every month, of all manner of 
persons likely to become any way chargeable to the parish, 
as 'well of such lately come, also the name of their landlords, 
in order that they might be dealt with according to law.” 

“ 1637. To prevent the great influx of poor people into 
this parish, ordered, that the beadles do present every fort¬ 
night, on the Sunday, the names of all new comers, under¬ 
setters, inmates, divided tenements, persons that have fami¬ 
lies in cellars , and other abuses.” 

“ This” says Parton, “ is the first mention 
of cellars as places of residence, and for which 
the parish afterwards became so noted, that 
the expression of ‘ a cellar in St. Giles's ’ used 
to designate the lowest poverty, became after¬ 
wards proverbial, and is still used, though 
most of these subterranean dwellings are now 
g«one. The term cellar-mates , mentioned in 

o 

the next entries, proves the increase of persons 
so lodged.” 

“ Ordered, that special chardge be given to the constables, 
beadles, &c. to search diligently for women great with child, 
that they be either removed, or good security got by the 
churchwardens in discovering and avoiding inmates, seller- 
mates, and new comers .” 

The receipts and expenditure on account of 
poor, mention the Irish expressly and repeated- 
o 2 


196 


ly by name, and from the number of entries of 
them, it may be inferred that they then began 


to abound in the parish:— 

s. d. 

1640. Paid to a poore Irishman and to a prisoner come 

over from Dunkirk .. 1 0 

Paid to John Brewer, a poore man travelling into 

Ireland . 1 0 

Paid to John Read, a poore distressed man from 

Ireland .. 1 6 

Paid to an old soldier, pressed out of this parish, 
to convey him to his own countrie, having lost 

all he had in Ireland. 2 6 

Paid for a shroude for an Irishman that died at 

Brickils. 2 6 


Mr. Parton supposes this person died of the 
plague, which was then raging. 

The following entries are curious, as illustrative 
of the poor’s relief previous to the establish¬ 
ment of a workhouse in St. Giles’s parish. 


s. d. 

1640. Paid to poore Slater , in Queen Street, and his 

sick children. 2 6 

1641. Paid to a poore woman, brought to bed of two 

children, in the back lane. 2 0 

For a shroude for a poore child that dyed in Ri¬ 
der’s Buildings. 1 6 

1642. To Mrs. Mabbs, a poet’s wife, her husband 

being dead. 1 0 


1647. Paid and given to Goody Parity to buy her boy 
ij. shirts (Charles, his father, is a waterman at 
Chuswick) and he is to keepe him at <£20. a 


year from Christmas) .. 3 0 

1648. Gave to the Lady Pigot , in Lincoln’s-Inn 

Fields, poore and deserving relief ... 2 6 













197 


s. d. 

1670. Given to the Lady Thornbury, being poor and 

indigent.. 10 0 

1640. Paid to Mr. Hibbs’s daughter, with childe and 

like to starve. 1 0 

1641. To oulde Goodman Street and oulde Goody 

Malthus, very poore. 

1645. To Mother Cole and Mother Johnson, xijd. a 

piece. 2 0 

1646. To William Burnett , in a seller (cellar) in 

Ragged Staff Yard, being poore and verie sicke 1 6 

1648. To Goody Sherlock , in Maidenhead-Field, lent 
our lynnen wheel and gave her money to bye 

flax ..„ 1 0 

To Goody Paret, in Bore’s-head Alley, in Queen 

Street, lent and gave as above. 1 0 

There are entries for casual relief to foreigners 
and others, some of them as follows:— 

£. s. d. 

1640. Gave to Signor Lifcatha , a distressed 
Grecian .... 

1642. To Lazhie Milchitaire , of Chimaica in 
Armenia, to passe him to his owne countrie, 
and to redeeme his sonnes in slavarie un¬ 


der the Turkes . 0 5 0 

1654.* Paid towards the relief of the marriners, 
maimed soldiers, widowes and orphans of 
such as have died in the service of parlia¬ 
ment..... 4 11 0 

1666. Collected at severall times toward the reliefe 
of the poor sufferers burnt out by the late 
dreadful fire of London.. 25 8 4 


* It was in this year, as the parish records informs us, 
that Oliver Cromwell gave c£40 to the parish, to buy coals 
for the poor. 













198 


£. s. d. 

1670. Total of money collected this year from the 
parishioners, towards the redemption of 
slaves...:....154 15 9 

“ 1679. By an order of special sessions, for the relief 
of casual poor, a paymaster was directed to be appointed an¬ 
nually, who was only lo pay by the authority of a note from 
two overseers, which was to express the name and place of 
abode of the party relieved; to be examined at the next 
Sunday meeting.*’ 

<£. s. d. 

1640. Paid to a poore gentleman undone by 
the burning of a cittie in Ireland, having 

licence from the lords to collect... 0 3 0 

Paid to Mr. Smith, his goods cast away coming 

from Ireland . 0 16 

164*2. Paid to foure Irishwomen and to foure poore 
women that came out of Ireland, passing to 

their own countrie. 0 1 6 

Paid to two porters for carrying two loads of 

cloathes to be sent into Ireland. 0 3 0 

Paid to a poor Irish minister... 0 2 0 

Paid to John Waters, his wife and two children, 

being very sicke, that came oute of Ireland 0 10 

The troubles in Ireland obliged vast numbers 
of the natives to take refuge in England, and 
the following items probably were for relief in 


consequence:—- 

1647. Paid and given one Heycock, a plundered 

Irish .. 0 0 6 

Paid and given a plundered Irish ministers wife 0 10 

Paid to poore plundered Irish . 0 2 0 

Paid and given to James Burges, a plundered 

Irish, per certificate . 0 2 0 

Paid and given Mrs. Renzi, a plundered Irish 0 10 











199 


Many other cases occur about the same 
period, but after 1648, the Irish are seldom 
mentioned by name, probably from being in¬ 
corporated with other poor. Numbers of fresh 
comers, however, arrived, as appears by the 
appointment of an assistant beadle in 1653, 
whose express business it was to search out 
and report such to the parish officers, as also 
by an entry afterwards, as follows:—■ 

“ 1659. Agreed on, that there be a meeting of vestry the 
first Tuesday in every month, to acquaint themselves from the 
constables and beadles, of inmates and other persons come 
into this parish, and likely to become chargeable to the same.” 

The following vestry minute, no doubt, is 
applicable to the French refugees and other 
foreigners. 

“ 1675. Whereas the charges of the poore do daily increase 
by the frequent resort of poore people from several countries 
and places , for want of due care to prevent the same; it is 
ordered, that Giles Hanson be elected an assistant beadle, 
with a salary of c£40 a year, to find out and notice all new 
comers, inmates, &c.; and that a coat and badge be provided 
for him, that he be the better known in his office.” 

In 1679, 1680, 1690, and 1692, orders to 
search out new comers were again repeated, 
and the answer of the churchwardens to the 
commissioners for building the new churches, 
anno 1710 states, “ that a great number of the 
inhabitants of St. Giles’s are French Protes¬ 
tants .” Hogarth admirably satirised, at a later 


200 


period, their dress and other peculiarities in his 
“ Four Times of the Day.” 

There are some farther curious entries in the 
parish accounts, some of which we will copy 

£. s. d. 

1640. Gave to Tottenham-court Meg , being verie 

sicke . 0 10 

1642. Paid and given to Guy, a poore fellow.. 0 10 

Given to the Ballad-singing Cobler . 0 1 0 

1646. Gave to old Friz-wig . 0 6 0 

1657. Paid the collectors for a shroude for oulde 

Guy the Poet . 0 2 6 

These were probably well known beggars of 
that day, judging of them from the familiar 
way in which they are mentioned. Again:— 

1657. Paid for a lodging for distracted Bess . 0 0 6 

Paid for a shift for mad Bess . 0 3 6 

1658. Paid a year’s rent for mad Bess . 1 4 6 

1642. Paid to one Thomas, a traveller. 0 0 6 

To a poor woman and her children, almost 

starved. 0 16 

To William Long , almost starved, and to 

Charles Powell, xijd. a piece. 0 2 0 

1645. For a shroude for Hunter*s child , the blind 

beggar man... 0 1 6 

1646. Paid and given to a poor wretch, name 

forgot . 0 10 

Given to old Osborne , a troublesome fellow... 0 13 

Paid to Shotton the Same glazier, to carry 

him towards Bath . 0 3 0 

1647. To old Osborne and his blind wife. 0 0 6 

To the old Mud Wall Maker . 0 0 6 

Parton observes, “ the lame glazier and the 
old mud wall maker were probably not mendi¬ 
cants but distressed artizans.” 

















201 


The general corruption of manners among 
the lower orders, owing to the continual influx 
of poor in this district, is noticed by Hogarth 
in his prints : the scene of his “ Harlot’s Pro¬ 
gress” is laid in Drury Lane; Tom Nero, in the 
“ Four Stages of Cruelty” is a St. Giles’s 
charity-boy, and is shown, with other vicious 
boys tormenting a dog near the church. His 
“ Gin Street” is situate in St. Giles’s; and in 
a night cellar, in the same parish, the “ Idle 
Apprentice” is supposed to be taken up for 
robbery and murder. Fielding also strictly 
agrees with the truth of these representations, 
in a pamphlet published a few years afterwards, 
where he mentions to have had it as informa¬ 
tion from Mr. Welch, then High Constable of 
Holborn, “ that in the parish of St. Giles’s, 
there were great numbers of idle persons and 
vagabonds, who have their lodging there for 
two pence a night. That in the above parish 
and in St. Georges’s Bloomsbury, one woman 
alone occupies seven of these houses, all pro¬ 
perly accommodated with miserable beds, from 
the cellar to the garret, for such two-penny 
lodgers. That in these beds, several of which 
are in the same room, men and women, often 
strangers to each other, lie promiscuously, the 
price of a double bed being no more than three 
pence, as an encouragement for them to lie 
together. That as these places are adapted to 


202 


whoredom, so are they no less provided with 
drunkenness, gin being sold in them all at a 
penny a quartern, so that the smallest sum of 
money serves for intoxication. That in the 
execution of search-warrants, Mr. Welch rarely 
finds less than twenty of these houses open for 
the receipt of all comers at the latest hours; 
and that in one of these houses, and that not a 
large one he hath numbered fifty-eight persons of 
both sexes, the stench of whom was so intole¬ 
rable that it soon compelled him to quit the 
place.” 

Such was the revolting picture of these pa¬ 
rishes about eighty years ago, applicable, how¬ 
ever, chiefly to St. Giles’s; and to show that 
its features have not greatly improved, I will 
here detail the evidence of Mr. Sampson Ste¬ 
venson, a parishioner, who was a fellow over¬ 
seer with me in 1814, given before a Committee 
of the House of Commons, 27th June, 1815, 
The Right Hon. George Rose, in the chair:— 

“ What is your business ? I am an Ironmon- 
monger, and live at No. 11, King Street, Seven 
Dials. 

Have you served any office in the parish ? 

I was one of the overseers last year. 

Have you had any opportunity of making 
observations on the characters of beggars ? A 
great deal, not only before I was an officer, but 
having been led, by being one, to look into 


203 


the matter, I have made a great many obser¬ 
vations, because there was a house which 
those people used, not more than eight yards 
from my own house. Complaint being made 
against it, the nuisance was done away. 

Have you had an opportunity of making par¬ 
ticular inquiry into the particular character of 
individual beggars ? I have, in fact, I made 
inquiry, not only of the landlord, but of some 
of those who seemed to be of a superior class, 
or petition writers, that was before I was 
overseer. A year or two ago this house lost 
its licence; it not only encouraged those kind 
of people, but people guilty of felonies and so 
on. This threw them into another quarter, 
and they made their residence at a public 
house called the Fountain, King Street, Seven 
Dials, where they assembled not only at night, 
but in a morning before they started on their 
daily occupations, as they express it. I have 
seen them come in. As it is a house, the land¬ 
lord of which is very respectable and has a 
family, I have gone into the bar on purpose to 
see their goings on, which is very near the 
tap room: they come at night, perhaps indivi¬ 
duals, and likewise those sailors, or pretended 
sailors, in a body; but those that go out one 
and two together, come ajso; those who are 
sailors never take any thing on their backs 
like knapsacks, for they only beg or extort 


204 


money, but the others beg clothing or any 
thing they can get, and always have a knap¬ 
sack to put it in. They will come laden with 
shoes and other habiliments, which being near 
Monmouth Street, the place where they trans¬ 
late old shoes into new ones, they sell, and 
likewise the clothing. I have heard them say 
they have made three or four shillings a day 
in begging shoes, for sometimes they got shoes 
that really were very good ones, and their mode 
of exciting charity is invariably to go bare-foot, 
and scarify their feet and heels with something 
or other to make the blood, as it were, to flow. 
I have seen them in that situation many times, 
and thus they sally out to their different sta¬ 
tions, but invariably changing their routes each 
day, for one is scarcely ever seen in the same 
direction two days together, but another takes 
his situation. I have seen them myself, I ne¬ 
ver saw them outside, but I have seen them 
pull out sums of money and share among them¬ 
selves, both collectively, and those who go out 
two or three together. 

Victuals I do not think I ever saw brought 
into that place, for I rather think they throw it 
away when they get it; mostly shoes and 
clothes, and such things as that, which they 
sell immediately. They stop as long as the house 
they use is open, and get violently drunk and quar¬ 
rel with each other, and very frequently fight; 


205 


after that they are not allowed to remain, if 
they were, the licence would be stopped ; and 
very likely there are other houses in St. Giles’s 
where they spend the other part of the night, 
if they have any money left. 

What is their general character ? They are 
people that are initiated in this mode of beg¬ 
ging, one teaches another these modes of ex¬ 
tortion, for I can call it nothing else, and they 
are of the worst characters; characters whose 
blasphemy it is almost impossible to repeat. 
They will follow you in a street for a length of 
space, and if they do not receive money, they 
give a great torrent of abuse, even although all 
the time you may hear them. 

Do you know any individual character ? I 
know several I have taken notice of. There is 
one whose real name I do not know, but he 
goes by the name of Granne Manoo; he is a 
man, I believe, who is scarcely out of goal 
three months in the year, for he is so abusive 
and vile a character, he is very frequently in 
goal for his abuse and mendicity ; he is young 
enough to have gone to sea, but I believe he 
has been ruptured, consequently they will not 
take him. I have seen him scratch his legs 
about the ancles to make them bleed, and he 
never goes out with shoes. That is the man 
who collects the greatest quantity of shoes and 
other habiliments, for he goes so naked as to 


206 


make it almost too disgusting for any person to 
see him in that situation. Another man I have 
known upon the town these fifteen or twenty 
years; he was as nimble as any man can be. 
I have seen him fencing with the other people, 
and jumping about as you would see a man 
that was practiced in the pugilistic art. He 
goes generally without a hat, with a waistcoat 
with his arms thrust through, and his arms 
bare, with a canvas bag at his back; he begins 
generally by singing some sort of a song, for 
he has the voice of a decent ballad singer; he 
takes primroses or something in his hand, and 
generally goes limping or crawling in such a 
way, that any one would suppose he could not 
step one foot after the other. I have also seen 
him, if a Bow-street officer or beadle came in 
sight, walk off the ground as quick as most 
people. 

There is a man who has had a very genteel 
education, and has been in the medical line, an 
Irishman; that man writes a most beautiful 
hand, and he gets his livelihood chiefly by 
writing petitions for those kind of people of 
various descriptions, whether truth or false¬ 
hood, I know not, but I have seen him write 
them, for which he gets sixpence or a shilling. 

Do you know whether they change their 
beats ? I have seen them come out from twenty 
to thirty of them, out of the bottom of a street 


207 


they call Dyot Street (now George Street) 
they branch out five or six together, one one 
way, and one another; invariably, before they 
get to any great distance, they go into a liquor 
shop, and if one among them has saved (and it 
is rare but one of them saves some of the wreck of 
his fortune over night) he sets them off with a 
pint or half a pint of gin before they set out, then 
they trust to the day for raising the necessary 
contributions for their subsistence for the even¬ 
ing. They have all their divisions, the town is 
quartered into sections and divisions, and they 
go part one way and part another. In regard 
to the mendicity of people begging with chil¬ 
dren, I can give a little information upon that. 
There is one person of an acute nature, who is 
practiced in the art of begging, will collect 
three, four, or five children, from different pa¬ 
rents of the lower class of people, and will give 
sixpence or even more to those parents per day 
for those children, to go begging with; they 
go in gangs, and make a very great noise, 
setting the children crying in order to extort 
charity from the people. I had an opportunity 
whilst I was in office to see many of these 
things. They will have the audacity some¬ 
times to come to the board for relief, which 
we have four days in the week. There is a great 
deal of money given away in St. Giles. They 
will, if necessary, swear they are all their own 


208 


children, and being generally of Irish parents, 
(wherever the tree falls it must lie) consequent¬ 
ly they get some relief till we can make proper 
inquiry; but in a very short time they are 
found out, for we usually send to the place they 
come from; but the landlords and landladies 
are so cunning, they would willingly swear that 
the children belong to them. But we have 
people of their own class, to whom we are 
obliged to apply, and by giving them some¬ 
thing, we detect the impositions we are liable 
to. A great many cases were before me last 
year as a parish officer; there was one where a 
woman had been in the habit of receiving five 
shillings per week, and at last a woman from her 
own country came forward and taxed her, that 
three of the children were not her own. We never 
saw them again, but they went into other pa¬ 
rishes, such as Mary-la-bonne and St. Andrew’s 
Holborn, and sought relief there ; they know 
we cannot remove them. We have had other 
persons whose families were their own, and 
when they have a habit of begging and get a 
good deal of money, they will not go to work, 
and we have complaints from around Bedford 
and Bloomsbury Squares of those persons be¬ 
ing nuisances. 

When the parties have come to the board, 
we offered them the house to come into with 
the wife and children; * No, I expect my hus- 


209 


band home soon, and I will not accept of going 
in.’ In those cases we get rid of them, but 
we invariably offer them the house, and when 
they will not accept it we stop the relief. 

How do they usually spend their evenings ? 
When they have done their work, which is 
towards evening, they get into a public-house, 
and call for gin, rum, beer, &c. whatever they 
like; and very frequently they have some very 
comfortable food; perhaps they will go to an 
eating-house, and get ham, beef, &c. I never 
saw a worthy person beg, they are ashamed 
of it. These people send out one of their crew 
to one of these eating-houses, and have ham, 
&c. brought, with knives and forks, and eat 
very heartily with the property they had procured, 
but I never saw any of them eat broken victu¬ 
als or articles given them, they either sell it or 
throw it away. I have never seen one instance 
of their bringing it to the public-house of 
rendezvous.* 

* The following instances of vagrancy are taken from the 
public papers:— 

“ A Professional Beggar—At Mary-la-bonne Office, John 
Driscold, an old mendicant, who has for a long time infested 
the streets of the metropolis, was charged with begging and 
annoying every person he met whose appearance was respecta¬ 
ble, and even following fashionable women into shops. In his 
pockets was found a small sum of money, some ham sand¬ 
wiches, and an invitation ticket, signed,' Car Durre, Chairman/ 
in which the * favour of his company is requested on Monday 
evening next, at seven o'clock, at the Robin Hood, in Church 
Street, St. Giles’s*, for the purpose of taking supper with 

p 



210 


Have they not taken it to their families ? 
No, it is seldom they go to them till they have 
been to the public-house; in fact, they most of 
them have no lodging ; there are houses where 
there are forty or fifty of them, like a goal; the 
porter stands at the door and takes the money; 
for three-pence they have each clean straw, or 
something like it; for those who pay four- 
pence, there is something more decent; and 
for six-pence, they have a bed. They are all 
locked up for the night lest they should take 

others in his line of calling or profession. Mr. Rawlinson 
said, he supposed that an alderman in chains would grace the 
beggars festival board, but he would prevent the prisoner form¬ 
ing one of the party on Monday, and sent him to the house 
of correction for fourteen days.”— Bell's Life in London , 
12th July , 1829. 

A set of mendicants now infest the metropolis, and rouse 
the feelings of the public by writing an exaggerated account 
of their distresses upon the pavements. It would appear that 
they succeed in obtaining more by these practices than by 
industrious habits, if the following statement be correct:— 

** Francis Fisher was, on Monday, taken before the magis¬ 
trates, when it was said that he belonged to a gang of forty 
Pavement Chalkers, who in the evening change their dress, 
and with their ladies, enjoy themselves over a good supper, 
brandy and water, cigars, &c. That in the winter time, when 
their situations appear most distressing, they often succeed 
in procuring from passengers as much as ten shillings per 
diem; and the average earnings of these fellows is calculated 
at ten shillings per day by an intelligent officer of police. This 
would make *£20 a day for the forty, and no less than *£7,300 
a year. He was, however, known as an old offender, and the 
magistrate sent him to the tread-mill for fourteen days.”— 
Examiner , 12th July t 1829. 



211 


the property, and in the morning there is a 
general muster below. I have asked country 
paupers, who have come for relief, how they 
have been entertained ; they said, very badly 
when they have gone there. The men go and 
examine all the places to see that all is free 
from felony, and then they are let out into the 
street, just as you would open the door of a 
goal, forty or fifty of them come out together, 
and at night come in again. They have no 
settled habitation but the places to which they 
resort, and there are many of these houses in 
St. Giles’s. They live constantly in a state of 
mendicity, it is their daily business, and on 
Sundays the same. They would not work* 
they are constant beggars, and they get more 
money by begging than many hard-working 
industrious men do at their work; in hard 
frosty mornings you may see some perhaps 
beg for work, but not at other times. Children 
beg at the instigation of their parents, and they 
are sent as early as possible; they can extort 
relief, and are distributed about. They per¬ 
haps take a broom, and if they do not bring 
home more or less, according to their size, they 
are beaten for it. A family of children is the 
greatest resource of such persons. 

When beggars do not get enough for their 
subsistence, I believe they have a fund amongst 
them, for I never saw an application made for 


212 


relief, their being brought into the house to be 
taken care of, or to be any way relieved. If 
they were Irish, they would be afraid to apply, 
for fear of removal to their own country, it 
being a constant practice to send them home 
as soon as possible. There is a Mrs. M’Carthv, 
who keeps a better sort of lodging-house than 
those already described, being more for stran¬ 
gers on their travel; I never heard of her harbour¬ 
ing such people as I have been describing. 

Do you know what the largest sums are that 
have been gained by beggars ? That I have 
been unable to ascertain, but I have heard 
them brag of getting six, seven, and eight 
shillings a day or more, according to their luck, 
as they call it, and if one gets more than the 
other, they divide it with the rest. 

Are there many of the paupers lodging in this 
way parishioners of St. Giles ? No, that is 
an evil in St. Giles’s; there are so many low 
Irish, that of £30,000 a year collected by poor 
rates, £20,000 goes to the low Irish. I cannot 
speak of the number residing here who live by 
mendicity, they ebb and flow; in the summer 
they branch out when the town is thin, perhaps 
to watering places, or elsewhere; they are 
birds of passage. The Irish have a settlement 
anywhere, they tell us so to our face, and that 
they have as much right to a settlement in St. 
Giles as we have ourselves.” 


213 


In treating of the laws and other matters re w 
lative to the poor, it will be necessary to revert 
to the early periods of our history, to trace 
their origin and their progress. 

Early records inform us, that the poor, until 
the reign of Henry VIII. subsisted by the 
charity of private benevolence entirely. “ For 
although,” says Blackstone, “by the common 
law the poor were to be sustained by parsons, 
rectors of the church, and the parishioners; so* 
that none of them die for default of sustenance, 
and though by the statutes 12th of Richard II. 
chap. 7, and 19th Henry VII. cap. 12, the 
poor are directed to abide in the cities or towns 
wherein they were born, or such wherein they 
had dwelt for three years (which seem to be 
the first rudiments of parish settlements) yet 
till the statute of 26th of Henry VIII. cap. 26,1 
find no compulsory method chalked out for 
this purpose; but the poor seem to have been 
left to such relief as the humanity of their 
neighbours would afford them.” 

“ The monasteries were in particular their 
principal resource, and among the bad effects 
which attended the monastic institutions, it was 
not perhaps one of the least (though frequently 
esteemed quite otherwise) that they supported 
and fed a very numerous and a very idle poor, 
whose sustenance depended upon what was 
daily contributed in alms at the gates of the 


214 


religious houses. But upon the total dissolu¬ 
tion of these, the inconvenience of thus en¬ 
couraging the poor in the habits of indolence 
and beggary, was quickly felt throughout the 
kingdom, and abundance of statutes were made 
in the reign of Henry VIII. for providing for 
the poor and impotent; which the preambles 
to some of them recite, had, of late years, 
strangely increased. These poor were principally 
of two sorts—sick and impotent, and therefore 
unable to work ; idle and sturdy, and therefore 
able, but not willing to exercise any honest 
employment. To provide in some measure for 
both of these in and about the metropolis, his 
son Edward VI. founded three royal hospitals, 
Christ’s and St. Thomas’s, for the use and relief 
of the impotent through infancy or sickness; 
and Bridewell, for the punishment and employ¬ 
ment of the vigorous and the idle. But these 
were far from being sufficient for the care of 
the poor throughout the kingdom at large, and 
therefore after many other fruitless experiments, 
by statute of 43rd of Elizabeth, chap. 2, over¬ 
seers of the poor were appointed in every pa¬ 
rish." 

He then adds, “ that these officers are to be 
substantial housekeepers, according to the 
spirit of the act, to be elected annually every 
Easter ; that their duty was to raise competent 
sums for the necessary relief of the poor, im- 


215 


potent, old, blind, and others unable to work; 
and secondly, to provide work for such as are 
able and cannot get employment otherwise.’* 
The latter duty,” he justly remarks , “ is now 
niost shamefully neglected . The act in question 
empowers the overseers to make and levy rates 
upon their respective parishes, which has been 
subsequently enforced and explained by various 
statutes.” 

The two leading objects of the Act of 43rd 
of Elizabeth (as before observed,) was to relieve 
the impotent poor, and them only, and to find 
employment for such as were able to work; but 
Blackstone contends, “ that accumulating the 
latter class into a workhouse for the purpose of 
employment, is not calculated to produce the 
most beneficial effectsbut he recommends 
them “ to have employment at their own houses, 
to prevent the sober and industrious being 
placed on a level in their earnings with the 
idle and dissolute.” 

It has been contended by others, that the 
Act in question was, in principle, understood 
very indistinctly by the legislatures of that day 
it not being in the power of the churchwardens 
and overseers, to whom the charge was con¬ 
fided, to make effectual provision for full and 
free employment of the poor, however authoris¬ 
ed by law, and aided with the support of magis¬ 
terial power. It does not seem to have occur- 


216 


red to the wise counsellors of Elizabeth, how 
inefficient the powers of these men would 
ultimately prove, in finding work for those who 
could not themselves find it. The shameful 
neglect Blackstone complains of must, there¬ 
fore, be understood with some qualification, and 
not in the abstract. 

Of all the legislative measures which have 
engrossed public attention, the poor laws have 
involved difficulties of the greatest magnitude, 
and this is strongly evinced by the multifarious 
form they have assumed. I have been at some 
pains to ascertain from the statute book, as a 
matter of curiosity, their number, and find they 


amount to no 
Acts, viz.— 

less thai 

Cap. 

i seventy-three public 

Cap. 

18 Elizabeth .... 


6 George II. 


43 ditto . 


12 ditto ... 


7 James I.. 

. 4 

13 ditto tT . 

. 18 

13 & 14 Charles II 


16 ditto . 


1 James II. 


17 ditto . 


3 Wm. & Mary ... 


17 ditto ... 


8 & 9 Wm. III. .. 


17 ditto . 


9 & 10 ditto . 


9 George III. ..., 


2 & 3 Anne . 


13 ditto .. 


4 ditto.. 


20 ditto . 


8 ditto. 


22 ditto . 


12 ditto. 

..... 18 

23 ditto . 

23 

5 George I. ...... 


30 ditto . 


9 ditto... 

.... 7 

33 ditto .. 

35 

3 George II. ...... 


33 ditto . 


5 ditto..........,, 


35 ditto . 




































217 


36 George III . 

Cap. 

53 George III . 

Cap. 

. 113 

36 ditto . 


54 ditto . 


41 ditto . 


54 ditto . 


41 ditto . 


54 ditto . 

.170 

42 ditto . 


55 ditto . 


43 ditto . 


56 ditto . 

.129 

43 ditto . 


56 ditto ... 


43 ditto . 


58 ditto .. 


45 ditto . 


58 ditto . 


48 ditto .. 


59 ditto . 


49 ditto . 


59 ditto .. 


49 ditto .. 


59 ditto . 


50 ditto . 


59 ditto . 


50 ditto . 


59 ditto . 


50 ditto . 


1 George IV . 


50 ditto .. 


1 & 2 ditto ... 


51 ditto .. 


1 & 2 ditto . 


51 ditto ........ 


5 ditto ... 


52 ditto . 


6 ditto ... 

. 57 

52 ditto . 


5 ditto .... 


53 ditto . 





These Acts, when added to the numerous 
local ones, which have been thought necessary 
to regulate the poor, are proofs of the perplexed 
state of the subject and seem to confirm the 
conclusion of Blackstone, that “the further any 
subsequent plans for maintaining the poor have 
departed from that of the 43rd of Elizabeth, the 
more impracticable, and even pernicious, such 
visionary attempts have proved.”* 


* The laws of our ancestors were extremely harsh against 
what were termed tf strong beggars, and persons whole and 
mighty in body.” An Act of the first of Edward VI. visited 












































218 


Every session of parliament develops some 
new scheme in reference to the poor laws, 
whereby the pressure of the rates might be 
alleviated, and a better and more practicable 
system prevail; but these have been generally 
abandoned as soon as proposed, and little has 
been effected beyond the conviction of the sub¬ 
ject being bounded by insuperable difficulties. 

Want of employment for the industrious is 
the medium of engendering poverty; when that 
fails, no resource remains but public benevo¬ 
lence, which ought never to be withheld from 
the deserving artizan, and needy applicant. 
Could this demoralizing evil find a remedy in 
new fields of industry, we should have little to* 
combat but idleness, imposture, and low pro¬ 
fligacy. The impotent, the helpless, and the 
aged, a prey to destitution, are the legitimate 
claimants on the parish funds; and although 
they are a numerous class, it would sink the 
aggregate to comparative insignificance, could 
we find a means of disposing of the others. 

The present mode of assessment for the relief 
of the poor, is confessedly managed with great 
irregularity. It had its origin at an early period 


the offence of vagrancy, with the barbarous penalties of sla¬ 
very, mutilation, and death. These severities were somewhat 
softened before the expiration of that short reign it is true, but 
a milder system was not wholly adopted, till after the begin¬ 
ning of the last century. 



219 


of our history, when the poor were partly sub¬ 
sisted by the contributions of the church, and 
the alms of the charitable. They were allowed 
to beg within certain districts, and the people 
were exhorted to be liberal and bountiful to¬ 
wards them, that is, the impotent, decrepit, 
indigent, and needy poor* Statutes in the reign 
of Edward VI. were directed to the same object, 
till at length, by the fifth of Elizabeth, cap. 3^ 
upon the exhortation of the priest, bishop, and 
justices, proving fruitless in exciting many to 
benevolence; they and the churchwardens were 
empowered to assess such persons according to 
their discretion, for a weekly contribution. 
This compulsory measure was afterwards ma¬ 
tured and incorporated in the celebrated Act of 
the forty-third of that queen, and has, from that 
period, been the operative law on this impor¬ 
tant subject. 

The parliamentary reports state, that no 
means can be resorted to, to ascertain the 
amount of the assessments for the poor during* 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The 
preamble of 13th and 14th, chap. 2, states, 
“ the necessity, number, and continual increase 
of the poor to be very great and exceeding 
burthensomeand in the year 1699, King 
William thus expresses himself in a speech 
from the throne: “ the increase of the poor is 
become a burthen to the kingdom; and their 


220 


loose and idle life does in some measure contribute 
to that depravity of manners which is com¬ 
plained of, I fear with too much reason, whether 
the ground of this evil be from defects in the 
laws already made, or in the execution of them, 
deserves your consideration.” 

Complaints of a similar kind have been made 
at different intervals, and it seems very singular 
that no authentic accounts were ever called for 
under legislative sanction till 1776- The fol¬ 
lowing are the successive results :—* 

1776. The whole sum raised for the poor was ... £1,720,316 


Expended on ditto. 1,556,804 

1783-4-5. Average sum raised was . 2,167,749 

Expended on ditto. 2,004,238 

1803. Sum raised for ditto... 5,348,205 

Expended on ditto... 4,267,965 

1815. Sum raised for ditto.. 7,068,999 

Expended on ditto. 5,072,028 


The excess above the sum applied to the poor 
was expended, according to the returns, in church 
rates, county rates, highways, and militia. 

In order to obtain a correct and enlarged 
view of the state of the poor in England, com¬ 
mittees of inquiry were appointed by parlia¬ 
ment, who reported in 1818, that their opinion 
was in favour of the principle of the law of 
43rd of Elizabeth, the main object of which 
was, first, to provide funds for the support of 
the real poor; and secondly, to furnish means 
of employment for those destitute of work, yet 









221 


able to labour. But they condemned the ad¬ 
ministration of the churchwardens and over¬ 
seers, who under the eye of the local magis¬ 
trate had become so little discriminative, as to 
have raised the number of paupers for the years 
1813, 1814, and 1815, to 940,626, being above 
nine in the hundred of the whole population. 
For these no less a sum than £6,132,719 were 
annually expended in maintenance, besides 
other sums for connected rates and expenses, 
forming a total of upwards of eight millions 
sterling, entailing a burden yearly of more than 
sixteen shillings a head on the whole population 
of England and Wales. 

Lord Malmsbury stated that, that annual sum 
had not decreased, in a motion he brought forward 
on the 16th of April, 1828, for a revision of 
the poor laws, and he complained of £1,360,000 
of this amount, levied solely as poor rates, 
being annually applied to other indefinite pur¬ 
poses, calling loudly for inquiry and correction. 
We shall see as we advance, how far the censure 
is applicable to the district we are treating of.* 

* From the parliamentary returns, it appears that the gross 
sums raised in England and Wales under the general head of 
poor rates during the year 1828, amounted to £7,715,000, of 
which <£1,370,000 was for other purposes than the relief of 
the poor, and .£6,300,000 expended for that object. There 
is an average dimunition of expense, as compared with the 
year preceding, of about two per cent, throughout the coun¬ 
try, which is, at least, a satisfactory circumstance, considering 
the increased price of corn. 



222 


Churchwardens and overseers are incorpo¬ 
rated with the act of Elizabeth, and so often 
adverted to, as to require some definite notice 
with other appendant officers, before we enter 
more minutely into the appropriation of the 
funds, &c. of these parishes. 

The institution of churchwardens is of ancient 
date, probably in the time of Henry VII. as 
the duties are set forth in a visitation made in 
1498. They are therein enjoined “ to be well 
chosen every yere , aftyr the manner of the chirchf 
and to make “ every yere a ful and playne ac - 
compte of the reciptys and paymentys by them 
during their wardeynshype ; and also to render 
compte at the tyme of chisyne other wardeynes of 
the landys , tenementys, juellys, and money tongyng 
to holy chirche .” For this purpose, “ a ful and 
clyere inventory of the goodys and landys ” en¬ 
trusted to their care, was to be furnished by 
them to their successors, on their quitting office, 
that it might be seen “ that the cliirch goodys 
were wel kept , and that no landys nor tenementys 
were let to cert ay ne persones , frendys , or kinnes+ 
folke , for lesse somme than they be worth yerelyf 
See. They were also to see that (s goodprovyson 
was made for the prestyes and clarkys that ben 
retayned for the chyrche, that none of them at - 
tended in foul and unclenly surplisys ,” and gene¬ 
rally they were to look to “ the due mayntenying 
of Godye servyce ” 


223 


Blackstone defines the office and its duties 
as follows:—“ Churchwardens are the guar¬ 
dians or keepers of the church, and represen¬ 
tatives of the body of the parish. They are 
'sometimes appointed by the minister and some¬ 
times by the parish, sometimes by both together, 
as custom directs. They are taken in favour of 
the church, to be for some purposes a kind of 
corporation at the common law; that is, they 
are enabled by that name to have a property in 
goods and chattels, and to bring actions for 
them, for the use and profit of the parish, 
yet they may not waste the church goods, 
but may be removed by the parish, and then 
called to account by action at the common 
law: but there is no method of calling them to 
account, but by first removing them; for none 
can legally do it, but those who are put in their 
place. As to lands or other real property, as 
the church, church-yard, &c. they have no sort 
of interest therein ; but if any damage is done 
thereto, the parson only, or vicar, shall have 
the action. Their office is also to repair the 
church, and to make rates and levies for that 
purpose ; but these are recoverable only in the 
ecclesiastical court. They are also joined with 
the overseers in the care and maintenance of 
the poor.* They are to levy a shilling forfeiture 

* Churchwardens are appointed overseers by 43rd of Eli¬ 
zabeth, chap. 2. They were anciently the sole overseers of 
the poor .—Nolan on Poor Laws, 



224 


on all such as do not repair to church on Sun¬ 
days and holidays, (Statute 1 Elizabeth, chap. 
2.) and are empowered to keep all persons 
orderly whilst there; to which end it has been 
held, that a churchwarden may justify the pul¬ 
ling off a man’s hat, without being guilty of 
either an assault or trespass. There are also a 
multitude of other petty parochial powers com¬ 
mitted to their charge by divers acts of par¬ 
liament.” 

The churchwardens since the division of 
these parishes are four, two for each. They are 
elected on Easter Tuesday, at the separate 
vestry rooms, by the suffrages of the inhabitant 
householders who pay poor rates.* This elec¬ 
tive privilege, as regards St. Giles’s parish, was 
decided in the Court of Exchequer, in 1670.j~ 

* Mr. Marriot, (Master of the Workhouse) in 1729, left 
a sum of money to buy gowns for the use of the churchwar¬ 
dens, if they would wear them, which we do not find, how¬ 
ever, that they ever did. 

f The following account is derived from the minutes of 
vestry, detailing the particulars of the transaction :— 

“ November 15th. 1669. At a vestry held according to 
ancient custom of the said parish, John Hooker was elected 
and chosen churchwarden, in the stead of John Andrews, late 
gone out of the parish, by the general consent of the said 
vestry and all other of the said inhabitants then present: 
signed by about thirty-three persons.” 

After this election appeared the following notice, signed by 
two magistrates and the rector :— 

“ Middlesex to wit. We, whose names are under-written, 
do declare that the meeting of the vestry at St. Giles in the 



225 


Sidesmen or synodsmen, as they were an¬ 
ciently called, were, according to Burn, divers 
creditable persons summoned by the bishops 
out of every parish to give evidence at their 
episcopal synods of any existing disorders of 
the clergy and people. 

In the days of superstition they had the 


Fields, in the county of Middlesex, was an unlawful meeting, 
and to the disturbance of the quiet of the inhabitants of the 
said parish, and contrary to the intent of the greater number 
of the members of the said vestry, and contempt of his ma¬ 
jesty’s government, they having been commanded in his ma¬ 
jesty’s name by two of his majesty’s justices of the peace for 
the said county to depart in peace, and not to act in a tumul¬ 
tuous way against the known laws of the land. 

Thomas Lake. „ „ „ 

J Moyle Robert Boreman, Rector. 


“ February 8th, 1670. The vestrymen ordered the verdict 
for the election of churchwardens to be entered in their book 
as follows:— 


“ The reason why the following exemption was transmitted 
into this book for the choice of churchwardens was as fol- 
loweth :—that Dr. Robert Boreman, Rector of the said parish, 
pretending the right, according to the canons of the church, 
to the election of one of the churchwardens to be in him with¬ 
out the consent of the parishioners, and they not allowing 
thereof, (it being contrary to the right and custom of this 
parish time out of mind), did elect and choose both the 
churchwardens; wherefore Mr. Thomas Forth being appointed 
by the said Doctor as churchwarden, in opposition to Mr. 
John Andrews, who was chosen by the parishioners 13th of 
April, 1669, did cite him, the said John Andrews, into the 
Spiritual Court, from which he had his appeal to his majesty’s 
Court of Exchequer, where he obtained a verdict, which is here 
transcribed, to the end that the parishioners for the future may 
know their right in election, and it is necessary the same be 
read every Easter Tuesday in every year to the inhabitants 
in vestry before their election.” 

Q 



226 


power of searching out heretics and other ir¬ 
regular persons, whom they presented officially 
to the bishops of their several districts. In 
more modern times, sidesmen are the mere 
attendants of the churchwardens, “ to carry 
up the wine at the communion, that the bearers 
and other mean persons be not employed in so 
high an office.” They were also, with the 
churchwardens (the parson consenting thereto) 
“ to collect the dutyes for burialls, and to pay 
the parson and clarke their dues out of the 
same; also to go along with the clarke, each in 
his turne, to assist him in taking the names, for 
the purpose of collecting the Easter offerings.” 

They consist of two to each parish, and are 
chosen by the past wardens, with the appro¬ 
bation of the vestry (by a regulation, 1617.) 
They are considered candidates for the office 
of churchwarden, and have been usually so 
appointed. 

Overseers of the poor appear to derive their 
name and office from the 43rd of Elizabeth, 
the particulars whereof, duties, &c. have been 
already stated in page 214 ; they were formerly 
called “ collectors of the poor,” in this parish, 
till after 1620, at which time four were elected 
and appointed by minute of vestry, to be re¬ 
newed annually. In 1631 they are termed 
“ overseers.” 


227 


A regulation was made in 1638 by the ves¬ 
try, restricting the overseers from receiving any 
sums of the inhabitants of the parish of St. 
Giles, other than what they were rated at in a 
book confirmed by his majesty’s justices of the 
peace, and also they were to pay the pensions 
of the poor according to such book. Other 
monies they were to pay over to the church¬ 
wardens, according to a former order; and 
if they refused to perform such order, “ the 
disposing of such monies should not be allowed 
upon their accounts.” This shows how at an 
early period the power and authority of these 
officers was abridged, and in 1649 £3 : 12:6. 
was disallowed them by the vestry. “ so much 
having been paid by them without the know¬ 
ledge of the churchwardens.” 

This regulation, and the consequent arbitrary 
enforcement of it, was a palpable infringement 
of the rights of the overseers, whose office and 
duties were by law distinct from such interfe¬ 
rence. It would be curious to know how re¬ 
solutely it was opposed at that remote period, 
which it probably was, however, unsuccess¬ 
fully.* 

* In 1673, six overseers were appointed; in 1678, seven 
ditto ; in 1680, eight were appointed ; and in 1682 they were 
increased to nine; they were still further increased to eleven 
in 1690; reduced to nine again in 1691 ; and in 1693 were 
once more raised to eleven ; their number at present is, for the 
two parishes, twelve , by act of 14th George III. 

a 2 



228 


The office and duties of Constable, Head- 
borough, Beadles, Watchmen, &c. is sufficient¬ 
ly understood without entering into minute 
particulars thereon. 

Sexton. The first mention of the sexton, 
by name, in the existing parish records, is 
during the plague year, 1668; but it is no 
doubt an office the most ancient. 

A particular account was delivered by a 
vestry order, 1683, of the profits attached to 
this office, and they were estimated at £135: 
17:6. per annum. Several payments were in 
consequence directed to be paid out of this 
money, to the amount of £55 annually, and 
four additional pew openers ordered to be kept 
from it. (See the sexton's curious tenure , page 
122J 

Parish and Vestry Clerks. Anno 1623, 
Charles Robinson, parish clerk, was this year 
chosen clerk of the works in building the new 
church. His duties are specified in the vestry 
minute, 1638, and it seems his office combined 
with it that of vestry clerk,* and he was “ di¬ 
rected not to collect his wages in vestry, but 
to go to the sev’ral houses of the p’isshioners 
to receive the same, unless they please to pay 

* The first mention of vestry clerk on minutes is dated 
1630, when an order was given to summon the vestrymen who 
were to be fined for non-attendance.— Parton. 



229 


him.” His name occurs in the parish Dooms¬ 
day Book, (seepage 98 .) 

1640. The sum of 3s. 6d. is entered as paid 
to “ Mr. Smyth the scrivenor, for writing 
some parish business,” which makes it probable 
that payments were only made, at first, for 
business done. 

1657. Mr. Robinson, the parish clerk, is 
this year mentioned as being paid for copying 
of bonds and indentures. Other entries also 
for writing parish business occur afterwards. 

1666. Mr. Stanislaus Bowes is now first mentioned as 
writing parish business, and he afterwards signs himself, 
“ vestry clerk.” This is the Jirst appointment to that office. 

Robert Mayes succeeded Bowes, and died before 1686. 

John Reynaulds was appointed vestry clerk January 1686, 
in the room of Robert Mayes, deceased. He compiled an 
alphabetical list of vestry orders, still remaining, for which 
he was paid in 1690. 

John Arden was chosen in the room of John Reynaulds, 
deceased, September 24th, 1710. In 1721, he accepted the 
sextonship on the decease of George Hoskins, for which he 
vacated the more respectable (but probably then less lucrative) 
office before mentioned. He appears to have continued in the 
latter office till his death, which happened in 1726.* 

Thomas Powell succeeded, on the resignation of John Arden. 
He is stated to have been chosen “ during pleasure only; 3 * 
hut, notwithstanding, held it until his death, 1724. 

Daniel Bolton was chosen on the decease of Thomas Powell, 
with a condition to have “ of’SO per annum as usual.” This 

* The vestry minutes collected by him, and called Arden’s 
Extracts, were produced as evidence on the trial, 22nd July, 
1829, Rogers versus Tyler. 



230 


is the first instance of the vestry clerk’s salary being men¬ 
tioned. Mr. Bolton continued in office until anno 1757, when 
he died. He left his family in some degree in want, and the 
parish generously allowed his daughters a decent pension 
during several years. 

Humphrey Elmes, who had been clerk to Mr. Bowes, was 
chosen “ in the stead of his late master,” at an increased 
salary, (for which he agreed to include certain extra parish 
business.) 

He was succeeded by Mr. Herbert Robertson. 

Mr. William Robertson was, in 1790, appointed vestry 
clerk, in conjunction with the former-mentioned Robertson, 
27th August, 1800: he is stated to be vestry clerk, and 
heir at law of the late Mr. Herbert Robertson. He died 
in 1814, and 

Mr. John Parton, who had been, in effect, vestry clerk, 
many years previously, was appointed his successor. He had 
at one time no less than fourteen appointments. He died in 
September, 1822, and was succeeded by 

Mr. Earle, who continued in office till October 4th, 1826, 
when he was suspended for converting the parish funds to his 
own use, and finally dismissed. 

Mr. D. W. Robinson was appointed, (October, 1826), at 
a salary for himself and clerks of .£1050 a year, and lost 
his appointment by the decision of the Court of King’s Bench, 
22nd July, 1829* 

The Workhouse. The parish of St. Giles, 
in common with many others, seems first to 
have used a general Workhouse, which is men¬ 
tioned in the following entry :— 

* Since this event three clerks, at a weekly salary, attend 
at the workhouse, and are found amply sufficient to transact 
the whole of the parochial business. This will be productive 
of a considerable saving to the joint parishes, inasmuch as 
their collective salaries amount to only £6 : 17 : 0. per week, 
being little more than £300 a year. 



231 


" 1662. Paid and expended agoing to Hixes 
Hall, (Hicks’s Hall,) for to petition for the Corpora¬ 
tion and Workhouse”.£0 8 0 

The “ Corporation,” here mentioned, was a 
union of several parishes to erect a Workhouse 
for their poor; in which business St. Giles’s 
took the lead, by first collecting money, peti¬ 
tioning, &c. as appears by several other entries. 

“ 1663. Paid in collecting the money for the 
Workhouse bookes and going to the Workhouse, by 
order of warrant” . £2 10 0 

The funds necessary for establishing a suitable 
building were tardily raised, from some ob¬ 
stacles we are unacquainted with now, and six 
years elapsed, when the vestry minutes inform 
us of an indictment being laid against the 
collector. 

“ 1669. Paid and expended in defending the ac- 
comptant against an indictment, for not collecting 
the money assessed for the Workhouse, he not being 
able to do the same; and the parish having for¬ 
merly paid the sum of £995, or thereabouts, and 
little or no beuefit accrued” .<£30 16 9 

The same year, also, a charge of £6 12s. is 
booked for “ defending the overseers” in the 
same business, and the matter not appearing to 
terminate very satisfactorily to the parish in a 
cpurt of law, a petition was presented to par¬ 
liament on the subject. These disputes after¬ 
wards subsided, and the Workhouse in ques- 





232 


tion, (if the different entries refer to the same 
building) became peopled, as per following 
minute:— 

“ January. Ordered, that a committee be appointed to treat 
•with the adjacent parishes, who were comprehended in the late 
Act of Parliament, concerning the Workhouse, in order to 
their contributing towards the fees and expenses for, paid 
p’curing the said act.” 

u 1649. Whereas the p’isshioners of the p’ish of St. 
Giles-in-the-Fields have been at the very great charge of 
p’curing or obtaining an Act of Parliament to passe, concerning 
a certain Workhouse , near Clerkenwell Green, built at the 
cost and charges of the in’itants of the parish of Stepney, 
aPs Stebenheth, have agreed to pay to the ch’w’d’ns of this 
p'ish the sume of <£35 for and towards the same. Ordered, 
that such sum of <£35 be accepted, &c.” 

Having procured an asylum for their aged 
and impotent poor (for the above appears to 
have been provided for that purpose, rather than 
for labour) it remained to purchase or erect a 
second place, which might be properly called a 
Workhouse. 

“ 1674. Ordered, that the Churchwardene should treat 
with the landlord of a certaine tenement, in order to the taking 
of the same for to set the poore on worked 

The churchwardens the following week re¬ 
ported, that in pursuance of the last vestry 
order, they have taken “ a certain tenement in 
Browne s Gardens , to sett the poore on work 
which was approved of by vestry. It was 
afterwards fitted-up and prepared for the recep- 


233 


tion of paupers by Robert Freshfield, carpen¬ 
ter, and in 1675, it was “ Ordered, that the 
churchwardens do buy formes and tables for 
the Workhouse, necessary for the employment 
and use of the said house, for setting the poor 
on worke and it was further ordered, “ that 
the poor on the establishment, like the pen¬ 
sioners, do wear brass badges .” 

In 1680, probably in consequence of the 
building of the Seven Dials, it was found ne¬ 
cessary (the Workhouse being on that account 
to be pulled down) to seek out for another 
situation, and an order of vestry directed, 
“ that certaine houses neare Whetstone should 
be enquired for to accommodate the poor with 
habitations.” 

1717. There seems from the vestry minutes 
to have been a design about this time to erect 
a new Workhouse ; a treaty was on foot with a 
Mr. Innocent, which eventually proved abortive, 
and the churchwardens had directions to en¬ 
quire for some convenient houses for the “ sicke 
poore and a committee met at Joe’s Coffee¬ 
house, Bloomsbury Market, “ to view the 
houses in Coal Yard, for an hospitall.” 

These not answering the purpose, another 
committee was appointed to make inquiry about 
a piece of ground in Tottenham Court Road, for 
the same purpose, but this also ended in nothing. 
When, in 1721, the subject of a parochial Work- 


234 


house was again revived, and a treaty entered 
into with Dr. Baker, the rector, for the pur¬ 
chase of Dudley Court, (where the parsonage- 
house stood, and which had probably been 
pulled down and abandoned) for a Workhouse. 
This negotiation did not succeed ; and, finally, 
a piece of ground, called Vinegar Yard, was 
purchased for the sum of £2,252 10s. for a 
burial ground, hospital, and workhouse. 

A case was circulated soliciting pecuniary 
assistance, stating that the poor to be relieved 
amounted to upwards of 840 persons, at an 
expense of above £4000 a year, and that a 
piece of ground was now purchased, near 
Bowie Yard, for the purposes above mentioned, 
and that a proposal had been submitted to ves¬ 
try by a Mr. Matthew Marriot, for employing 
the able, and maintaining the impotent poor* 
similar to an approved plan practised at Tring, 
Berkhamstead, Luton, &c. 

But to execute the plans in question, a large 
house, or houses, must be built by the parish, 
sufficient for the reception of all such persons 
as were relieved; where they were to be one 
family, supplied with meat, drink, and lodging, 
and employed in such work as they were capa¬ 
ble of, to be clothed when wanting, and lodged 
in a cleanly manner, and the produce of their 
labour sold for the benefit of the parish. &c. &c. 


235 


This appeal was successful, and the vestry 
signified to Mr. Marriot that his proposal was 
accepted; the deeds of purchase were prepared; 
Mr. Hucks (the brewer,) was appointed treasu¬ 
rer for the subscriptions, and a committee agreed 
to sit weekly during the progress of the build¬ 
ing. 

In 1724, March 30th, the then committee 
reported, that in pursuance of the order of 
vestry, they had caused the brewhouse to be 
pulled down for enlarging the burial ground, 
and they recommended the same to be fenced 
with a proper brick wall, &c. 

That for an hospital they were of opinion, 
that “ a long room, one pair of staires, in the 
old building, at the east end, would make a 
convenient one for the women, &c. and for the 
Workhouse, they stated, that two rooms under 
the hospital would be proper for this use, with 
certain alterations, &c. &c.” 

These buildings and alterations were finished 
before March, 1725, and on the 2nd of that 
month an additional rate was ordered to be 
made for the relief of the poor, “ to make good 
the monies laid out in building and furnishing 
the Workhouse, and buying stock to set the poor 
to work.” The following sums are in the 
churchwardens’ accounts 


236 


1725. Purchase Money, as before stated.<£2,252 10 0 

Paid towards building the Workhouse, 


this year. 1,461 16 4 

Towards furnishing the same with all ne¬ 
cessaries . 423 5 0 

Original cost.<£4,133 11 4* 


1727. The present Infirmary was erected 
upon the site of Kempe’s house and yard, the 
accommodations proving insufficient. The ex¬ 
pense was £531 7s. lOd. and the part of the 
house fitted-up before for Infirmaries, was con¬ 
verted into wards for the convalescent poor and 
those able to work. 

1728. The further sum was laid out this 
year of £680 7s. on account of repairs and ad¬ 
ditional buildings. Matthew Marriot was the 
first master, and was appointed April 23rd, 
1724. 

This building has necessarily undergone many 
alterations since its erection, and a considerable 


* When it was in contemplation to build the Workhouse, the 


following was the state of the poor :— 

162 all above 70 years of age.......£750 

126 Parents over burthened with children . 600 

183 Children, parents dead or run away . 800 

70 sick at parish nurses ... 600 

300 Men lame, blind, mad, &c. various ages.1,200 

Incident charges, as surgeons, apothecaries, bills, clothes 
for hospitals, &c. at least.. 250 


.£4,200 
















237 


addition was made to it in 1808, by building a 
school-house for the infant poor. As a whole, it 
is not very eligible as an asylum for the paupers; 
added to which, it is in a gradual state of decay, 
and must be rebuilt at no distant period. It 
contains on an average not less than from 800 
to 900 inmates, which is however but a small 
proportion to the number constantly relieved, 
at an expense of nearly <£40,000 ! ! 

Heston Establishment. By an act of 
7th George III. cap. 39, entitled " An Act for 
the better regulation of Parish Poor Children 
of the several Parishes therein mentioned, 
within the Bills of Mortality,” provision was 
made to keep those under six years old at 
nurse in the country, within the distance of not 
less than three miles, and those under two years 
to be not less than five miles distant, &c.* It 


* A clause in this Act provides, “ that five noblemen, or 
gentlemen, inhabitants of each parish, shall, within fourteen 
days after the 1st day of July, 1767, be appointed and chosen 
under the denomination of Guardians of the Parish Poor 
Children ; two or more to be chosen out of the select vestry, 
or out of the governors, directors, or managers of the poor of 
each parish ; and, where there is no select vestry, the said 
five guardians are to be elected by the inhabitants of each 
parish on some day in Easter week, by the said inhabitants of 
each parish, having aright to assemble in vestry ; and if there 
be no nobleman or gentleman, or not a sufficient number who 
will accept the office, then the same shall be chosen out of the 
principal and most respectable inhabitants. The first guar¬ 
dians to continue in office till the year 1770, and all future 
guardians to remain in office three years. Churchwardens and 



238 


has been the practice ever since this act has 
continued in force, to send the children of these 
parishes to cottagers and others at Enfield, 

Overseers are declared to be ineligible. The said guardians 
to have singly or collectively free access to visit the said 
children, and if they discover the health of any of them in 
danger from neglect, to report the same to the vestry, or parish 
officers, and should they not take measures to remedy the 
evil, the said guardians are empowered to obtain redress of a 
magistrate.” 

There are other useful and humane clauses, most essential to 
the well being of this helpless class of paupers, but strange to 
say, the act has been entirely disregarded as far as it applies to 
the appointment of guardians for these united parishes until 
1828, (see list of vestrymen.) 

On this shameful omission, Mr. Thiselton, whoserved the office 
of overseer of Bloomsbury in 1810, makes the following judi¬ 
cious remarks in a sensible and useful pamphlet, published in 
1812 

“ Had this act been attended to, it would not have fallen to the 
lot of three of the late overseers to discover seven young 
children locked up in a room at the top of the school, as naked 
•as they were born, with the exception of an old bed-gown, 
confined with the itch, four of whom had been confined there 
upwards of six weeks, while three had not been there so many 
days. Upon the above being discovered, the school-mistress 
was sent for into the room, who pretended not to know any 
thing of the subject; upon which the apothecary was consul- 
ted, who stated, he did not consider children afflicted with the 
itch, required his attendance; and in short, these poor infants 
were locked up in the above place, without the knowledge or 
consent of any one officer of the establishment, or indeed of 
any one, except the nurse in whose ward such children were 
placed.” 

Suffice it to say, that such a gross dereliction of public 
duty was discovered by Messrs. Savage, Davis, and Thiselton; 
and the school-mistress, ashamed to meet the charge, resigned 
her situation. 



239 


Finchley, Hendon, &c. where they have been 
distributed in various numbers, at a weekly sum 
per head. 

The many evils of this system, such as the 
privation of necessary food, and inattention to 
the morals and health of these helpless infants, 
had excited the humane attention of the 
officers, who, in the discharge of their duty, 
were in the habit of visiting them; and it had 
long been in contemplation to have an establish¬ 
ment where they could be taken care of col¬ 
lectively under one roof. 

In 1827 such an asylum was obtained at Hes¬ 
ton, where the children were safely lodged ; but 
the measure encountered much opposition 
whilst the arrangements for so lau dable a pur¬ 
pose were pending: however, I believe all parties 
are now satisfied of the utility of the change thus 
effected. In point of economy, much advantage 
will accrue to the parishes eventually by this 
new system, but much persevering vigilance is 
necessary to counteract mis-management and 
consequent evils; and I here quote the report 
of our worthy churchwarden, Mr. Mills, to 
illustrate this fact:— 

“ 20th July, 1829. Mr. Rogers and myself 
went this day to visit the Heston establish¬ 
ment^ which we found a princely one.” (For¬ 
merly a mansion occupied by — Frazer, Esq. 
a county magistrate.) “ There are 259 children 


240 


here, and we found no less than thirty-nine of 
them afflicted with the itch to a miserable 
degree. Several had scrophulous disorders ; 
others the opthalmia, some of whom were blind. 
All the servants were healthy; and the food used 
was of the best quality, the best bread, meat, 
cheese, &c. and the best Carolina rice. The 
beds were remarkably clean, as were the 
rooms, and all was creditable except the pre¬ 
valence of the diseases alluded to.” 

Subsequently, they enjoined more attention 
on the medical attendants, by which means 
health has been almost entirely restored to these 
distressed children, who, but for this humane 
interference, would have fallen a prey to neglect. 

The annual expense of this etablishment, 
(to which we shall again revert) is stated at 
about £3000. 


241 


Chapter VII. 

Public Charities — Almshouses — Shelton's and 
other Schools—Parish Estates — Mal-appropri- 
ations—Strictures on Vestry Refutation, 8$c. 
%c. 

The public institutions of charity and bene¬ 
volence of the united parishes, come next under 
our notice, and in priority the almshouses claim 
our first attention. 

Almshouses. The origin of these asylums 
for poor widows is derived from a grant of land 
by the Earl of Southampton in 1656, on which 
they were built. This was in Broad Street, 
nearly at the north end of Monmouth and 
King Streets, where they stood until 1782, at 
which period they were pulled down to widen 
those avenues. 

Strype informs us of there being in his time, 
“ an almshouse in St. Giles, not far from the 
church, in the middle of the street, which hath 
this inscription, * Saint Giles’s Almshouse, 
anno domino 1656.’ This ground was granted 

R 


242 


to this parish by the right honourable the Earl 
of Southampton, for the term of 500 years, for 
the only sole use of Almshouses for aged wi¬ 
dows, and for no other use, whereupon there 
was built these five Almshouses, and enclosed 
within the bounds of the same ground, which 
fabrick was erected at the costs of the said 
parrish the year above written.” 

Maitland, speaking of them, 1739, says, 
“ they seemed to have yielded but a small in¬ 
come, for each of the inmates have only an 
allowance of £2:8:0, and twelvo bushells of 
coals yearly; and at Christmas and Whitsuntide, 
out of Lady Dudley’s gift, twenty shillings 
each.” The whole expense in building them, 
&c. was £296 : 12: 10. 

In 1782, when it was in contemplation to remove 
these Almshouses, some difficulties arose as to 
the tenure of them, which rendered it necessary 
to have the opinion of counsel. The case was 
submitted to the Attorney General of that day, 
who was Sir Lloyd Kenyon. It stated, that 
they were situate in the middle of the street, 
rendering the adjoining passages narrow and 
inconvenient, and that they were in a ruinous 
state of decay. That “ the vestry, (which is 
select,) was desirous to take them down, and 
lay the ground into the highway for public 
accommodation.” It then stated, that the Duke 
of Bedford, as heir to the late Lord Southamp- 


243 


ton, was lord of the manor, and that his trus¬ 
tees, he being a minor, would give their con¬ 
sent to the ground becoming part of the high¬ 
way. That the vestry intended building the 
Almshouses in a suitable situation, and to con¬ 
tinue the payments of the women, but they 
had doubts whether they could carry their in¬ 
tentions into effect without endangering the 
forfeiture of the bequests, unless by an act of 
parliament. 

The Attorney General answered, “ I am of 
opinion that the vestry may carry their inten¬ 
tion into execution without risking a reversion 
of the charitable donations. The gifts do not 
contain any condition as to the place where 
the Almshouses shall be situated ; and there¬ 
fore I have no doubt but the income of the 
several funds will be properly applicable to the 
almshouse people, although the Almshouses 
shall be removed to another situation.” 

The vestry clerk, Robertson, had directions 
forthwith to purchase a piece of ground, and 
a most singular situation was selected on the 
north side of Lewknor’s Lane, for which £500 
was given. Here the new Almshouses were 
erected on a spot both close and unhealthy, 
surrounded with buildings of the lowest descrip¬ 
tion ; and it is a fact, that very few of the pa¬ 
rishioners have any knowledge of the existence 
of this charity, such is the obscurity in which 
it is involved. 

r 2 


244 


The endowments to these Almshouses have 
increased, but they have been grossly mis¬ 
managed, as may be seen in a printed report 
(of 1827) circulated cautiously by the Alms¬ 
house and Audit Committee, appointed by the 
select vestry from their own body. We shall 
make a few extracts in a compressed form from 
that document, as illustrative of this fact, after 
stating the funds and their application to this 
charity, as set forth in the fourteenth report of 


the commissioners of charities. 

« ESTATES Per Ann. 

£. s. d. 

Premises at Rainham, Essex, Danver’s gift. 20 0 0 

Houses in Prince’s-street, Drury-lane, Ilolford’s 

gift . 60 0 0 

Bailey’s rent-charge. Turnstile, Holborn. 3 10 0 

Houses in Elbow-lane, Duchess of Dudley’s gift... 69 0 0 

Houses in Charles Street, Drury Lane.18 0 0 


FUNDED PROPERTY:— Stock. 

Gift of Messrs. William and Henry 
Shakespeare, stock in 3 per Cent. 

Consols ... 1,500 0 0 

Gift of Martha Gregory . 666 13 4 

Surplus of a soup subscription en¬ 
tered into in 1800-1801. 915 0 11 

Subscription of the inhabitants in 

aid of the fund in 1815. 2,850 0 0 

Produce of unclaimed dividends on 

part of a soup fund in 1810.. 21 11 5 

Produce of William Wodden’s gift, 
being an investment in lieu of a 
rent-charge on the Hampshire Hog 100 0 0 

<£6,053 5 8 


Annual dividends or interest thereof . 181 11 10 

Total Annual Income.<£351 19 10 


k 

















245 


APPLICATION. 

£. s. d« 

Each of the twenty almswomen receive, by quar¬ 
terly payments, an annual stipend of £\Q. of 
which c£7. 2s. is considered as paid from the 
rents, and £8. 18. from the dividends, making; 

a total per annum of.. . .. 320 0 0 

There is also paid, by quarterly payments, to 
twenty female out-pensioners, called ticket- ^ 
women, being old decayed housekeepers of one 
or other of the united parishes, appointed as 
vacancies occur in the list by the church¬ 
wardens... 29 4 0 

£349 4 0 


The distributions of these sums, as settled 
by the vestry, are eight times a year, as may 
be seen in extracts from the churchwardens’ 
accounts, 1824 and 1825, they being, ia- 
trusted with the payments. 

ACCOUNTS AS TO PAST TIMES. 

The preceding statement of the income and its application 
is derived from the Fourteenth Report of the Commissioners 
of Charities, but it is not correct; the rent of part of the 
premises in Prince’s-street is omitted, which, at the date of 
the Commissioners Report, was let for £20* The vaults under 
the almshouses should likewise be borne in remembrance, as 
expected to yield rent at the expiration of the first seven 
years of the present letting; and the legacy of «£100. by the 
late Thomas Leverton, Esq. is an addition to the funded pro¬ 
perty. At the close of this Report is a correct statement of 
the improved revenue in future applicable to this charity. 

In the minutes of vestry several entries exist showing the 
state of the funds at the time of such entries* But previous. 







246 


to J815 no book of accounts another documents can be found 
detailing the receipts and disbursements of this fund. In 
that year, in consequence of a representation of the committee 
in 1814, of the inadequate state of the income, an appeal was 
made to the benevolence of the inhabitants, and a considerable 
sum was raised by subscription. After investing to the 
amount of <£,562, £ 20. was carried forward to the cash ac¬ 
count ; several other subscriptions, afterwards made, are en¬ 
tered on the receipt side, and a few disbursements on the pay 
side; the account then abruptly terminates, without any 
subsequent entries of receipts or dividends, or disbursements 
of them, from 1815 to the present time . 

From the preceding statement it appears, that the fund ap¬ 
propriated to the supportof the almswomen has not been adequate 
to the expenditure charged on it; and it must not be forgotten, 
that it was to render this adequacy complete, that the bene¬ 
volence of the parishioners was called upon in 1815, and 
which shewed itself by the liberal contributions that were then 
made, as they hoped to relieve the wants and add to the 
comforts of the penny less and friendless widow, (preventing 
the necessity of recourse to the poor's rates,) and thereby 
render this fund effective of the pious intentions of those who 
by will had bequeathed estates or money for that charitable 
purpose, but which, from change of circumstances, had be¬ 
come inefficient for their designs. 

How the rents have been collected there is no means of 
ascertaining; and no accounts are in existence showing any 
application of the receipts; and little information can be 
obtained from any oral source to supply this want. The 
churchwardens have been the channels or almoners through 
which and by whom the payments have been made to the 
almswomen, but they have had no knowledge from what 
source the money qught to have been derived, and were 
scarcely aware that it came out of the poor's rate ; and, if 
they had any idea of the kind, it was under the belief of Us 
being repaid from the proper funds. Such , indeed, has been 


247 


the successful endeavour to keep all in ignorance y that few 
have had any knowledge of the circumstances detailed in this 
Report, till their minds were recently directed to enquiry and 
consideration.* 

The sums for a great part of the expenditure have for the 
last two years and upwards been surreptitiously drawn out 
of the poor's rates. The first trace that can be found of 
this practice is in 182*2, when the present system of auditing 
the parochial accounts commenced % By these it is ascertained, 
that from 182*2 to 1826 the sum of <£700. 2s. has been paid 
into the hands of the churchwardens for the time being, for 
distribution to the almswomen. 

As the funds have been sufficient for the expenditure, rents 
and money to this amount must have been misapplied to some 
other purpose, and this sum irregularly drawn out of the poor’s 
rate to supply the deficiency. 

The existence of such an abuse for so long a time, and 
after the liberality of the parishioners had been called upon 
to aid an impoverished fund, is lamentable in the extreme. 
Although the officer charged with collecting the rents is cul¬ 
pable for his abuse of the confidence reposed in him , yet the 
continuance of the misapplication must be ascribed to the 
want of a systematic mode of account , and a vigilant super¬ 
intendence of the disposition of the funds according to the 
intention of the donors and directions of the Vestry.” 

There cannot be a greater proof of the in¬ 
utility of a self-elected vestry than is here 
exhibited. Can we imagine that any body of 

* It is stated by Mr. Stable, that he knew the late Mr. Parton 
was in the habit of advancing the requisite sum from his own 
money; and a book, showing these advances, used to be pro¬ 
duced by him at the meetings of the committee. An entry 
occurs in the account of Shelton’s School of a payment by the 
clerk into that fund of £b. 6s. being a poundage received for 
collecting the rents given to the almswomen; and a similar 
entry occurs in the Vestry Minutes of 20th December, 1814. 



248 


men under the controul of the parishioners 
would have been so totally reckless of these 
charitable donations ? The answer is obvious, 
and we see at once that the candid exposition 
here adduced would never have been resorted 
to, had not the Commissioners’ Report made 
its appearance, which rendered longer con¬ 
cealment impossible. But for this the funds 
appropriated to the poor would have been put 
in requisition as usual, to cloke the careless¬ 
ness of these pretended guardians of the 
parish. 

The report goes on to prescribe a future plan 
to obviate the like recurrence. The accounts 
henceforth are to be kept with accuracy, and to 
be audited quarterly ; the vestry clerk is not 
to have the receipt of the rents, nor to be 
charged with the custody of any money ; the 
funds applicable to this charity are to be lodged 
in the hands of a banker, and only to be drawn 
out by prescribed signatures; and, finally, the 
sum of £200 is proposed to be advanced from 
the poor’s rate to commence opening an ac¬ 
count, to be replaced when the Almshouse 
revenue will admit of it. 

Something in the nature of an apology is 
next offered for abstracting money from the 
poor’s rate, for defraying the repairs and the 
expense of coals for this charity, on the ground 
of its revenue being barely sufficient for its 


249 


other purposes.* The committee are, how¬ 
ever, quite in the dark as to the length of time 
this custom has existed: all this and much more 
has been left, no doubt, by their predecessors 
to chance and accident, for want of the salu¬ 
tary controul of the parishioners. 

Mr. Rogers, in a placard issued in 1828, 
makes the following remarks“ The rents 
arising from property left for the support of 
Almshouses, have, there is good reason to be¬ 
lieve, been most shamefully misappropriated, 
while the money to pay the almswomen has 
been illegally and surreptitiously drawn out of 
the poor rates. From the year 1822 to 1826, 
£700. 2s. 0. is admitted to have been taken in 
this way. Only one book concerning this 
fund was produced by the vestry agent; that 
book purported to be the minute-book of the 
Almshouse Committee from the year 1804 to 
1815, and contained apparently regular entries 
of the proceedings of that committee during 
the whole of that period. Some circumstances 
in the nature of the entries caused an examina¬ 
tion of the water-mark of the paper, when it 
was found that the paper itself was not manu- 


* 15th, August, 1829. Application was made to the 
churchwardens and overseers to supply the almswomen with 
coals as usual, but they firmly refused compliance, determined 
that the poor’s fund should be applied solely to its legitimate 
object. 



250 


factured until the year 1814. It may be in the 
recollection of many, that in the years 1814-15* 
an appeal was made to the inhabitants at large 
for subscriptions for the support of the alms- 
women, when nearly £2000 was very liberally 
subscribed for that purpose. It would have 
been well if the inhabitants had then ascer¬ 
tained what it was that made the subscription 
necessary, and what accounts there were of the 
ancient funds. 5 ’* 

* With a view to fair dealing, I will here copy some re¬ 
marks made on this statement in a pamphlet entitled, “ A re¬ 
futation of charges against the Select Vestry.” page 29. 
“ The partial misappropriation of the rents of the property 
forming part of the Almshouse Fund has not been con¬ 
cealed by the vestry from the parishioners. The losses formed 
part of the former vestry clerk’s defalcations; but there is no 
ground for the insinuation of any existing abuse in the ancient 
funds that rendered necessary the subscription in 1814-15, a 
necessity arising from their total inadequacy. And what is to 
be inferred from the discovery that the water-mark of the pa¬ 
per is 1814 ? The book does not pretend to have been written 
at a more ancient date; it is labelled 1814, being a general 
transcript of accounts of the funds made out in that year, not 
a document purporting to be of ancient date, written on paper 
of subsequent fabrication, which is meant by the insinuation. 

The present improved state of the funds merits approbation, 
and the prospect thereby afforded of, in time, benefiting the 
condition of the objects of this benevolent institution, invites 
the support of the inhabitants, and shews that the vestry is 
not so negligent of their duty, so unworthy of good opinion, 
so swayed by sordid self-interest, or reckless of character, as 
their accusers would exhibit them.——It mustbeliere observed, 
that it is from such documents, and those relating every cir¬ 
cumstance with undisguised plainness, that the opponents of 
the vestry have culled the particulars of their accusations 
against the vestry, not from obscure and imperfect records. 



251 


Shelton’s School. —In the year 1661, being 
the year after the restoration, Mr. William 
Shelton purchased a piece of ground, with cer¬ 
tain erections thereon, for the sum of *£458 10s. 
situate on the south side of Parker’s Lane, 
which runs east and west, between Drury Lane, 
and Little Queen Street, containing in front 
next the said lane and its rear one hundred and 
five feet, and in depth fifty feet or thereabout. 

This purchase, described as having been late¬ 
ly in the occupation of the Dutch Ambassador, 
he devised 4th of July, 1672, with all the houses. 

They have discovered nothing, all has been displayed before 
the eye of the inquirer. What has been good the vestry has 
confirmed ; where evils have existed, remedies have been ap¬ 
plied to their correction. It is said that this shews that un¬ 
soundness of constitution prevailed, it is replied, that it equally 
shows a self-existing power to work its restoration to health, 
and the vestry neither delayed the reformation, nor required 
the stimulus of popular outcry.” 

This laboured account of the suspicious transaction of the 
water-mark, is, to say the least of it, very unsatisfactory. By 
their own shewing, no book of accounts or document detailing 
the receipts and disbursements could be found previous to 
1815, (see page 246), and yet a book is here manufactured 
for the occasion with minutes from 1804 ! Was not the con¬ 
clusion of Mr. Rogers very natural; and has not the vestry 
writer made the matter worse in thus attempting to repel the 
charge ? If the constitution of the vestry is worth any thing 
it would not have carelessly suffered such acknowledged irre¬ 
gularities and especially the loss of «£700 2s. (more than two 
years allowance to these poor women) which was surreptiti¬ 
ously abstracted from its funds. 

These gentlemen, however, on the principle of the trite 
proverb always assume credit to themselves for u shutting the 
stable door when the steed is stolen.” 



252 


messuages, lands, and tenements, to certain 
trustees and their successors, who, from the 
rents and profits thereof, were directed to lay¬ 
out on Michaelmas-day, yearly, the following 
sums:— 

£. s. d. 

“ For twenty gowns for twenty poor old men and 


women of St. Giles . 15 0 0- 

The like for ten gowns for St. Martin’s. 7 10 0 

The like for five gowns for Covent Garden. 3 15 0 


To provide an able and fit schoolmaster to teach and 
instruct in learning, in the school and room he had 
appropriated for that purpose in Parker’s-lane, fifty 
children of the poorest sort, thirty-five whereof to be 
of St. Giles, ten of St. Martin’s, and five of Covent 


Garden, and to pay him per annum ..20 0 O' 

To provide him a gown yearly of the value of. 1 0 0 

To provide a coat yearly for each of the scholars, 
at 6s. each.15 0 0 


(The aforesaid gowns and coats all to be of agreeu 
colour) 

To lay in two chaldron of coals in the summer year¬ 
ly, for a fire for the scholars in the winter. 0 0 0 

To pay his heir at law per annum . 10 0 O 

And the remainder or surplusage to be applied in 
binding out some of the scholars apprentice. 0 00 

The annual sum expressly appropriated (exclusive 
of two chaldron of coals) being”.£72 5 0 

In the will, which was regularly proved 23rd 
December, 1668, there was a proviso, that Mr. 
Shelton’s widow 1 should, during her life, re¬ 
ceive the rents, and elect the school-master and 
scholars, and also, exclusively purchase the 















253 


gowns and coats. She dying, 1681, the trusts 
of the will devolved on the rector and church¬ 
wardens of St. Giles, under the superintendance 
of the vestry. 

The premises consisted at that time of coach¬ 
houses and stables in the occupation of Lord 
Halifax, and of several small old houses, let out 
to paupers and poor people, at rents amounting, 
from c£50 to £60 a year. 

1687. The heir at law agreed to accept £7 
10s., as his portion of the rents; in 1700, the 
whole premises were let upon lease to two per¬ 
sons at c£34 per annum; and afterwards, the 
buildings being decayed, the whole were let for 
long terms, at ground rents, amounting to £25 
10s. per annum. In 1763, Mr. Reid the school¬ 
master died, and a considerable sum being due 
to the churchwardens, and the rents being quite 
inadequate to fulfil the intention of the testator, 
the school was discontinued. The gowns for the 
same reason were not provided more than twice. 

1766. Mr. Richard Remnant, churchwarden, 
laid out the sum of <£ 76 10s. monies accumu¬ 
lated to that time from this estate, in the pur¬ 
chase of £83 6: 3 three per cent, consols, it 
being determined so to dispose of the rents 
regularly as to accumulate, and thereby to 
re-commence the school at a future period 
according to the testator’s will, and trustees were 
afterwards appointed to carry this determination 
into effect. 


254 


The receipts and payments, under these 
arrangements, were audited annually until 
some time in 1815, when the following results 
where stated 


Part of the estate, 6‘2-feet in front, and the whole 
depth, is now occupied by Messrs. Cutler and Co. Iron¬ 
mongers, as work-shops, at a net rent of . 27 0 0 

This was let fora long term to Robert Cox and others, 
and will expire in 1S43. 

The residue of the estate, being 43-feet in front, 
has been let to John Bromley also, as workshops, for 


61 years, which expired Midsummer 1815 . 8 10 0 

The three per-cent consols accumulated in about 
50 years, £6,758 4s. 5d.202 14 9 


Produce.£238 4 9 


N. B. The rent charge of£lOhad not been claimed 
for 70 years and more. Dividends in hand, and due 
January 1816, amounting to ,£228 8s. 10. Upon 
these facts, and upon the fair calculation of Brom¬ 
ley’s premises letting for an additional £12, making 


in all £21 a year. 12 10 0 

The income would then be.<£250 14 9 


Calculating on erecting or purchasing a school¬ 
room, and a residence for the master, requiring the 
sale of as much stock as willlessen the annual dividend 50 0 0 

There will then remain to fulfil the will of the donor £200 14 9 


By the directions of such will, the following- 
matters are to be annually provided :—• 














255 


£. s. d. £. s. d. 
Prices speci- Estimated Ex¬ 
iled in Will, pense in 1815. 

Thirty-five gowns for old men & women 26 5 0 36 15 0 


Salary and gown for schoolmaster . 21 0 0 42 0 0 

Fifty coats for scholars . 15 0 0 35 0 0 

Coals and candles. 0 0 0 30 0 0 

Heir at law of donor. 10 0 6 0 0 0 

Books and stationery . 0 0 0 20 0 0 


Water rent & other incidental expenses 0 0 0 15 0 0 

Estimated annual expense of school .178 15 0 

Estimated surplus of rents and dividends 21 19 9 

<£200 14 9 


The gown meant by the devisor was probably a warm loose 
woollen wrapper, open in front and fastened round the waist 
with a girdle, which in his time was worn by men as well as 
women. 

The estimate is made on a supposition that they are to be 
supplied with strong warm coats, and the women with stuff 
gowns.” 

Founded upon these calculations, the vestry 
appointed a committee to look out a proper 
place for re-establishing the school; and even¬ 
tually, premises in Lloyd’s Court were selected 
and taken down, and a new building was there 
erected for that purpose; the whole expense of 
which, including surveyor’s bill, agreements, 
insurance, &c. amounted to <£’1,163 : 10 : 1 
December 4, 1816, a report was made in 
vestry, stating in substance, “ that the commit¬ 
tee had taken the ground alluded to, for sixty- 
one years from the preceding Midsummer, at a 
net rent of forty pounds; on which the school 











256 


was built, and conducted under regulations 
agreeable to the tenets of the Church of England, 
and conformable to the wishes of the testator; 
and that the Paving Committee had agreed to 
give for the ground not so appropriated, for the 
whole term, forty pounds per annum. 

£ s. d. 

“ That the said trust estate at present con¬ 
sists of the hereditaments in Parker’s Lane, ori¬ 
ginally devised by Mr. Shelton, and which are 
let on building leases, at net annual ground rents 

amounting to. 48 0 0 

And £6,300 three per cent, consolidated annui¬ 
ties, producing an annual interest or dividend of 189 0 0 

<£237 0 0 


That it appears to the committee by the following estimate, 
the funds of the charity are sufficient for all the purposes spe¬ 
cified by the donor, and for providing each of the scholars 
annually with one suit of clothes instead of a coat, mentioned 
in his Will. 


Thirty-five gowns and coats, for thirty-five old 

men and women. 

One coat for the master ... 

His salary. 

Coals, candles, water rent, insurance, and incidents 

Books and stationery ..... 

One coat for each scholar of similar make s. d. 


to the school of Christ’s Hospital.. 12 0 

Breeches, 4s. 6d.; cap, 10d.; girdle, 9d.; 6 1 

Shoes and stockings . . 7 6 

Shirt, from 4s. to 5s.; say .. 4 5 

Fifty suits, each at.£T 10 0 


£ s. d. 

36 15 0 
3 0 0 

80 0 0 
25 0 0 
15 Q 0 


75 0 0 


<£234 15 0 


















257 


Mr. L. G. Hansard produced and read the following ex¬ 
tracts, which were ordered to be entered upon the Minutes, 
and are as follow :— 

“ That on the 8th of June, 1826, evidence was given by 
Frederick Augustus Earle, (then clerk to the late Mr. Par- 
ton,; and now the vestry clerk of these parishes, before a 
committee of the House of Commons, appointed to enquire 
into the education of the lower orders of the metropolis, and 
ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 19th 
of June in the same year. 

“ That Shelton’s School was conducted till the year 1763, 
when, it being greatly indebted to the parish, and the income 
reduced to £25 10s. it was discontinued ; the rents from that 
time have been laid out in the funds to accumulate, under the 
direction of the vestry, and the account has been annually 
audited. 

“ The old premises are now let, from Lady-day last, at ,£48 
a year, and the consols now standing in the trustees’ names' 
with the accumulation, amonnt to £7,212 : 8 : 9. 

<* That the appointment of the trustees is in the vestry: the 
trustees named under the will were the minister and church* 
wardens, but the vestry has the management of this.” 

tc That the commissioners appointed pursuant to Act 58 
George III, cap. 91, to enquire concerning charities, in their 
second report to parliament, dated 5th July, 1819, and ordered 
to be printed on the same day, after reciting the facts already 
detailed on the minutes of this vestry, state, ** that fifty boys 
are now educated in this school, according to the mode of 
instruction adopted in the National Schools, and are fully 
clothed once a year. They are selected from the parishes, and 
in the proportion specified in the founder’s will, except that 
the children directed to be taken from the parish of St. Giles 
are now taken from the united parishes of St. Giles and St. 
George Bloomsbury ; this, among other privileges originally 
possessed by the parish of St. Giles, having, since the creation 
of Bloomsbury into a parish, been extended to the united 

s 


258 


parishes. They are appointed by a committee of a joint 
vestry.” 

And in concluding their report on this object, the com¬ 
missioners state.— 

“We have looked with some degree of jealousy into the 
management of the funds of a charity which appear to have 
been wholly suspended for a period of no less than fifty-three 
years; but we find, that during that time the accounts were 
regularly audited every year, and the accruing income added 
to the accumulating capital; nor does it seem that the period 
of suspension could have been materially abridged, without 
running the risk of the charity being put into activity, with 
funds inadequate to the full accomplishment of its objects.” 

* 

Iii the report (page 4), of the committee of 
estates, &c. belonging to the joint parishes, dated 
December 11, 1826, is the following extraordi¬ 
nary statement. “ The rents, amounting to 
£48. should be appropriated to the support of 
Shelton’s School; and the commissioners of 
charities have been led to suppose thisto .be 
the fact; but the treasurer of the school, during 
five years that he has held the office, has received 
only twenty-one pounds annually, ignorant that 
the charity was annually defrauded of twenty- 
seven pounds, which sum has been received by 
the late vestry clerk, but carried to no account. 
In the accounts of the Shelton’s School revenues, 
the whole rent is regularly entered as received 
up to Michaelmas 1821, when the late Mr- 
Parton’s account closed. To this period the 
accounts of the charity are signed as audited. 


259 


Mr. Waddell then commenced the treasurer- 
ship; but there is no subsequent entry of the 
twenty-seven pounds, nor are there any signa¬ 
tures affixed to the accounts indicating their 
examination. On reference to the receipts of 
the tenants, it appears that Mr. Earle has 
received the rents for the last six years, amount¬ 
ing to £162. This sum is unaccounted for by 
him.” 

It is impossible to read the above, without 
feeling surprise at the carelessness of the com¬ 
mittee appointed to manage the school, and 
especially the treasurer, who was interested in 
keeping an accurate account. It surely was 
his duty to render, at least, an annual statement 
of receipts and expenditure, with vouchers, 
which would have completely precluded the 
collector from this mal-appropriation. 

The following is an abstract account of the 
estates, rent-charges, annuities, and funded 
property, belonging to the charities, &c. of 
these parishes, which is inserted here for the 
future guide of every parishioner, and for want 
of which, at an earlier period, several estates 
and bequests have been .entirely lost, 


How acquired. 


Date. 


Description. 


I.—PAROCHIAL ESTATES : 


1. Parochial Funds.... 

1723 

Premises in Bowl-yard or Vinegar-yard, St. 
Giles, held by trustees, members of the Vestry, in 

*2. ditto. 

1792 

Prpmisps ip S^ort/s Oiirrions, hfild ill fee .. 

3. ditto..... 

J821 

1803 

Additional premises in the same place, ditto.... 
ditto ditto . 

4. ditto....,...,. 

1806 

Premises in Broad-street. St. Giles, held on lease 
of 99 Years, of Jane Cecil. 

5. ditto. 

1824 

Land at Whitton, in the parish qf Isleworth; 
held by trustees in fee . 

{}. ditto. 

1783 

Premises in the Coal-yard and S word-bearer’s- 
alley ; held by trustess in fee. 

7. 

1816 

Premises in Lloyd’s-court; lease from Sir Ro¬ 
bert Clifton to seven vestrymen, dated 1816, for 
61 years . 

8. Shelton’s Will. 

1672 

Premises in Parker’s-street; devised to the Mi¬ 
nister and Churchwardens, in trust, 

part let to Mr. Cutler, on lease for 

dated , and expires in 1843, 

at.£27 0 0 p. ami. 

part let to Mr.Wood, expires 

in 1877, at.21 o 9 ditto 


II. ANNUITIES 

1. Stephen Skydmore i 

or Scudamore .... j 

2. Elizabeth Cummings 


8. Margaret Boswell 


and FUNDED PROPERTY: 


4. Frances Batt. 


6. Sir William Coney 

6. TheHon.Robt. Bertie 

7. Henry Carter .. 

8. Thomas Edwards.... 


9. 

10. William Atkinson .. 

11. Unknown. 


1584 


1735 


1720 


1736 

1672 

1679 

1676 

1791 


12. Thomas Leverton , 


13. 


1822 


1825 


same. 


A payment by the Vintners’ Company; a gift for 

fuel. 

Legacy of £200, the interest to be distributed in 
bread. Invested in South Sea annuities, in the 
name of the Accountant-general, payable to the 

Minister and Churchwardens. 

Legacy of £100 South Sea stock; interest to be 
given to ten poor sick families. Invested in the 

name of the Rector and Churchwardens. 

Legacy of £100. Invested in South Sea stock, 
in the names of the Rector and Churchwardens 
Gift of £501 said to be carried to the joint 
Gift of £50 > stock or poor rates of the parish. 
Gift of £50 j [see 14th Rep. p. 191.] ...... 

Legacy of £500 for bread. Invested in the 
names of Peter Ludgate, Charles Stable, and John 

Waddell, in the 3 per cent, consols . 

Stock in the 3 percent, consols, stated to he the 
accumulation of invested rents during the suspen¬ 
sion of Shelton’s school; standing in the names of 

Dr. Willis and John Vaillant, Esq.. 

A rent-charge of £1 on the Bull’s Head public- 

house, in Lewknor’s Lane ... 

Gift of £90 navy 5 per cents, standing in the 
names of the Right Rev. John Buckner, lord bishop 
of Chichester, George Brettingham and Charles 
Stable. To be distributed to poor Irish women in 
childbed, living in St. Giles’s parish. Npwnew 

4 per cents.... 

A reversion at the death of Mrs. Leverton of 
£5000 3 per cent, consols, in trust for paying five 

widows £25 each... 

A legacy of £100 invested in 3 per cent, consols, 
in the names of John Vaillant and Charles Stable 











































Rents 

receivable. 

Rents 

outgoing. 

Appropriation. 

£. s. d. 

£. a. d. 

—r 

— 

-- 

The Workhouse. 

» i 


162 0 0 

School attached to the Workhouse. 

— 


Intended for building an Infant Nursing establishment. 

let to Paving 
board for £40 
per ann. 

40 0 0 

Watch-house, Round-house, and Engine-house. 

Shelton’s school. 

48 0 0 


ditto. 

Amount 

of 

Stock. 

£• 8* d» 

Annual 
Dividend, or 
Receipt. 

£. a. d. 


263 6 0 

133 6 8 

6 2 0 

4 0 0 

stated in the 14th Rep. p. 191, to form a bread fund, and 
at p. 191, to be distributed in twenty-four two-penny loaves 
twice a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays, to the twen¬ 
ty almswomen, and four to distressed inhabitants selected 
by the churchwardens. 

100 0 0 

3 0 0 


lost 

lost 

1 l 

534 4 3 

16 12 6 

25 three-penny loaves distributed to as many poor persons 
of the parish of St. Giles. 

6,300 0 0 

189 0 0 

10 0 

Shelton’s school. 

Premises in dilapidation ; twenty-five years of the an¬ 
nuity in arrear. 

94 10 0 

4 2 9 

according to the terms of the gift. 

. ) 

— 

— 

not in operation. 

115 0 9 

3 6 0 

almshouses. 1 














262 


The Charity Schools of the united parishes 
are situate in Museum Street (formerly Queen 
Street), extending into Bloomsbury church-yard. 
These had their origin in a bequest from the 
Rev. Edward Leach, in 1734, of two houses in 
Plumtree Street, formerly called Newton’s 
Houses, and were given in trust under his will 
for the education of poor children of the pa¬ 
rish, whose parents were not able to pay. 

They were instituted in 1805, and are open 
to the children of both parishes, consisting of 
160 boys, 100 of whom are clothed, and 60 
girls, who are both clothed and boarded. The 
master’s salary is £80, with lodging; the ushers 
£40; and the mistress has £30 a year, with 
board and lodging. 

By a statement made by the trustees in 1826, 
the funds for this foundation were highly flou¬ 
rishing : the following is an epitome :— 

£. s. d. 

“ Subscriptions, donations, and legacies of 
Sir Henry Featherstone and family, from 1705 
to Christmas 1746, 41 years. 1627 18 O 

Perpetual benefactions, including donations, 
on admitting an additional number of girls, 
amount to ... 8568 10 5 

These sums are funded, the dividends being applied to the 
annual expenditure. 

Annual subscriptions . 804 6 0 

To which must be added, produce of three annual charity 
sermons and collections at anniversary dinners—amount un¬ 
certain. 

Mr. Thomas Cook, on his examination before 
the Education Committee of the House of 





263 


Commons, stated, that the charity had several 
legacies in reversion, one of which amounting 
to £150 had already fallen in, and that the 
trustees, after expending about £2000 annually 
in the support of the school, had a surplus 
which enabled them during several successive 
years to vest several hundred pounds in the 
funds. When they were in contemplation to 
add 25 girls to the former establishment of 35, 
to board on the foundation, they went from 
house to house in the joint parishes, and were 
successful, by which means their funds had 
accumulated and flourished. The 60 girls cost 
them in board, clothing, &c. about £690 a 
year. 

It is highly gratifying to know that 5,456 
children had, up to 1826, been received into 
these schools, by which many of the evils 
arising from idle habits and street associations 
have been greatly lessened. No less than 
2,887 boys had then been apprenticed and put 
to service therefrom, and 1,413 girls disposed 
of in like manner. 

These Schools are well conducted, great re¬ 
gard being paid to the health, morals, and 
cleanliness of the children. The boys are 
taught reading, writing, and arithmetic; and 
the girls, added to the two former branches, 
are taught needle-work and housewifery. The 
order and regularity of this establishment is 


264 


attributable in a great degree to the assiduity 
of the late Mr. Davis, who gratuitously devoted 
a great portion of his time and attention to 
promote the objects for which it was founded. 

There are several other Charity Schools, 
among which may be enumerated the Bedford 
Chapel School in which 130 children are edu¬ 
cated and partly clothed, supported by volun¬ 
tary annual subscriptions and donations. There 
are others instituted and supported by the con¬ 
gregations of Eagle Street, Gate Street, Great 
Queen Street, and West Street Chapels, &c. 

The Irish Free Schools in George Street were 
established in 1813 by and under the auspices 
of His Grace the Duke of Bedford, Sir 
Digby Mackworth, Bart., the Rev. J. Ivimey, 
Mr. Clerk of Bury Place, and many other be¬ 
nevolent gentlemen. They were founded for 
the purpose of affording instruction and clothing 
to the children of the poor Irish Catholics and 
others, without interfering with their creed. 
About 200 were thus taken from the streets, 
where they were exposed to depravity in the 
extreme ; but, strange to say, this laudable in¬ 
stitution met with the greatest opposition from 
the catholic priesthood, and the Rev. Mr. Gan- 
dolphy preached against it on the following Sun¬ 
day, which produced an effect beyond what he 
intended. A mob assembled about the School- 
house and broke the windows ; and the master. 


265 


Mr. Finigan, stated before the Committee 
of the House of Commons, that he and his 
wife were pelted with mud, and his child so 
beaten as to become a cripple. After this the 
number of children decreased from 230 to 38; 
but the schools gradually progressed, so 
that in six weeks after they arose to the full 
number again. The opposition has however 
been so incessant, as to prevent the Schools 
from flourishing to much extent. 

St. Patrick’s School. That branch of it 
applicable to female children is established in 
Denmark Street, where about 200 are educated 
in the Catholic principles on the Lancasterian 
plan. This charity school has much increased 
under the management of an excellent school¬ 
mistress, who undertakes the tuition without 
fee or reward : and there is another Catholic 
School in Wild Street. 

The Lying-in Hospital in Brownlow 
Street for married women, is an establishment 
instituted in the year 1749, where ample com¬ 
forts are provided for such as are fit objects of 
this charity, which has been always well sup¬ 
ported by voluntary contributions. 

The Bloomsbury Dispensary and other 
charitable institutions, to which we can only 
allude, are instances of that benevolence for 
which our district, in common with the British 
public, is so justly famed. 


266 


Some other charitable bequests will come 
conveniently under our more immediate no¬ 
tice, subjoined to biographical sketches of the 
donors. 

Among the parochial bequests there is a remarkable one of 
William Baynbrigge, Esq. in 1672. He gave £300 to build 
a south gallery in St. Giles’s Church, the rents and profits of 
which drising from the seats were to be given to the poor of 
that parish. When the church was about to be re-built, a 
clause was inserted in the Act of 4th George I. at the instance 
of Colonel Baynbrigge, his descendant, to secure this intention 
of his ancestor. It appears, that for some time the profits were 
disposed of as devised ; since which they have been, during 
many years, otherwise appropriated. 

This matter was taken up very properly by some of the 
overseers appointed in 1828, who complained, in a printed pa¬ 
per issued by them, that the Vestry had refused them access 
to the minutes of 1672, and the necessary accounts, to enable 
them to enforce the intention of the donor. Dated St. Giles's 
and St. George's Workhonse, 9th March, 1829, and signed 
by George Sams, Charles Yardley, Joseph Crane, and Daniel 
Bailey. 


267 


CHAPTER VIII. 

Vestry defined — Legal Decisions thereon — St. 
Giles's Select Vestry—Bishop of Londons Man- 
date — Churchwardens—Their Answer to Bi¬ 
shop Juxons Articles—Minutes of Vestry Pro¬ 
ceedings-—Bloomsbury Vestry , under ] Oth of 
Anne — Maitland's Account—Dissensions with 
the Mother Parish , fyc. 8$c. 

At this juncture, when so much interest has 
been excited respecting the powers, constitu¬ 
tion, and legality of Select Vestries, it cannot 
be thought irrelevant to enter into a minute 
inquiry on the subject, which I shall endea¬ 
vour to perform with the impartiality it de¬ 
serves. This inquiry is indeed the more 
necessary in reference to our district, because, 
although a triumphant decision had seemed to 
set the question at rest, we are menaced with 
another appeal to the Court of Kings Bench, 
to reverse the verdict already obtained* 


* <( On the trial of the cause in the Court of King’s Bench, 
the jury gave a verdict against the Select Vestry, but in direct 
contradiction of the decision of the judge, who pointed out the 
powers contained in the Acts of Parliament, from which the 
-joint vestry derived the authority under which it acted. 



268 


“ A Vestry, properly speaking, is the assem¬ 
bly of the whole parish, met together in some 
convenient place, for the dispatch.of the busi¬ 
ness and affairs of the parish; and this meeting 
being commonly held in the vestry-room ad¬ 
joining or belonging to the church, it thence 
takes its name of Vestry, as the place itself does 
from the parson’s vestments, which are usually 
kept there.* * (See Shaw's Parish Guide , edition, 
1743. 

It was originally the right of every parishi¬ 
oner, who paid assessments, to claim a place 
in the Vestry; but where parishes are large, to 
prevent confusion, they have delegated that 
power to the best and most substantial amongst 
themselves, to represent and act for them. 
(See more on the subject in Daltons Justice , Burns 
Ecclesiastical Law , <$c.) 


Under such circumstances, the Vestry consider it aduty to itself 
and the parish to apply for a new trial; not that it is prompted 
by a desire to retain power, or by a pertinacity in clinging to 
authority, but by a determination to justify itself from the 
imputation of usurping the parochial government, and to show 
that the powers which it exercised were conferred by law. 
(See “ Refutation of Charges against the Select Vestry ” 
page 47 .) 

* The Select Vestries originated from the practice of 
choosing a certain number yearly to manage the affairs of the 
parish for that year, which, by degrees, became a fixed method; 
and the parishioners lost, not only their right to concur in the 
public management, but also the right of electing the ma¬ 
nagers ; and such a custom has been judged valid.” (Gibs, 
219 .) 



269 


A Vestry, to be legal, must be founded on 
prescription, by election of the parishioners, ©r 
by Act of Parliament. It follows, therefore, 
that where none of these exist, validity cannot 
be pleaded, and it becomes an assumption in 
themost odious form. 

The indolence and ignorance of our Ancestors, 
have entailed the evil of select vestries upon 
their posterity ; and the supineness which they 
evinced is but too prevalent at this day, or the 
usurped power which oppresses the present 
generation, would no longer be the subject of 
dissension and complaint. 

“ Reason,” according to Coke, “ is the foun¬ 
dation of law;”—can it be reasonable, then, 
that a few individuals, self-elected and self- 
appointed, should rule a parish with uncon- 
trouled power ? Is it reasonable that a body, so 
constituted, should perpetuate themselves with¬ 
out reference to the changes which the great 
innovator, Time, produces, without responsibi¬ 
lity, and without restraint ? Vestries had thefr 
foundation in the monastic ages of superstition, 
when faith was implicit and superstition had 
unbounded sway. Is nothing due to a more 
enlightened period, and are we never to be 
divested of the Gothic fetters which have so 
long enchained us ? 

It matters not, in my estimation, whether a 
Select Vestry be so by assumption or prescrip- 


270 


tion, it is totally at variance with the impre- 
scriptable rights of Englishmen; and I am, 
therefore, at war with it: it is contrary to the 
constitution, and I abhor it. 

Well has it been remarked, that “no body of 
men in the state possess the right of taking 
money from our pockets, without rendering an 
account; neither have members of parliament 
the power of electing themselves, and rendering 
themselves permanent : it was reserved for 
Select Vestries to enjoy these exclusive privi¬ 
leges, so long as the people quietly submit to 
be the victims of their tyranny and assumed 
power.” 

“ Ignorance is the mother of error,” and it is 
this that has fostered and perpetuated the evils 
of Select Vestries, it never being the intention 
of the legislature to invest men with the unli¬ 
mited power they have assumed in dispensing 
the hard-earned money of their fellow parishi¬ 
oners, as it suits their purpose, setting accoun¬ 
tability at utter defiance. The King cannot 
raise money without the concurrence of the 
Lords and Commons ; bid;, more omnipotent 
than royalty, these oppressers, in the shape of 
Select Vestries, assess and distress at pleasure, 
contemning the presumption of those who dare 
attempt to penetrate into the recesses of con¬ 
cealment in which they veil themselves. It has 
been said, with some appearance of plausibility. 


271 


that the individuals who compose Select Ves¬ 
tries are highly respectable men—men, who 
would not lend themselves to any act of a dis¬ 
honourable tendency. The premises, but not 
the consequences of such a proposition, are 
admissible ; because the evidence of experience 
assures us, that when men become invested 
with power, it necessarily degenerates, and 
debases the human mind. Place any body of 
men in an irresponsible situation, and they be¬ 
come reckless of any other interests but their 
own ; “ such is the frailty flesh is heir to.” 
But, on the other hand, how often does it hap¬ 
pen that men of the greatest worth, who would 
shrink from the taint of baseness, are placed in 
the vestry lists, who have no opportunity of 
becoming effective, not being able, from vari¬ 
ous impediments, to attend the meetings. In 
respect to the parishes under our notice, it is 
well known that several judges, and men who 
fill eminent stations, have their names thus en¬ 
rolled ; they serve to grace and ornament the 
list, by adding to its dignity; whilst their high 
and laborious situations preclude them from 
becoming more than a dead letter, in useful¬ 
ness to the parish. In short, it is a truth not 
to be controverted, that a few individuals (with 
difficulty assembled), have managed the vast 
concerns of this extensive district, and with what 
ability, the evidence of facts will best illustrate. 


272 


Parton informs us, that “ the management of 
this parish (St. Giles), is entrusted to a Vestry 
which is select by prescription, and consists of 
the rector, churchwardens, and thirty-six other 
persons, being resident householders therein.” 
He adds, “ its existence and powers are con¬ 
firmed by Episcopal Mandate, April 27, 1628; 
which contains the various regulations, as to 
the constitution, qualifications, and government, 
and by which they were empowered * to doe 
and exercise all things belonging to vestriemen, 
for the good and benefit of their church and 
parish.’ The nature of the parish business 
they had to direct, their mode of managing it, 
and other particulars, are subsequently set 
forth in an answer to the Bishop’s Mandate, 
dated 1625. Vacancies, in case of death or 
removal, are filled up by the surviving, or con¬ 
tinuing members.” Such is the flippant ac¬ 
count of the Vestry by its former clerk, a man 
of considerable research ; and from his office, 
which he held during many years, necessarily 
competent to have given most useful and au¬ 
thentic information on a subject so important. 
It would, on the contrary, seem as if he viewed 
the “ constitution” and “ nature” of his Vestry 
so doubtfully, that he thought it most prudent 
to abandon dilating upon it with breathless 
precipitation. 


Prescription, or immemorial custom, has 
been long ascertained by the law to commence 
from the reign of Richard I. and any custom 
may be destroyed by evidence of its non-ex¬ 
istence in any part of the long period from his 
days (1199,) to the present.” “This rule was 
adopted when, by the statute of Westminster 
(3 Edward I. cap. 30,) the reign of Richard I. 
was made the time of limitation in a writ of 
right. But since, by statute 32 Henry YIII. 
(1541.) cap. 2, this period (in a writ of right,) 
hath been very rationally reduced to sixty 
years. It seems unaccountable, that the date of 
legal prescription, or memory, should still con¬ 
tinue to be reckoned from an era so very antiquat¬ 
ed.^” Blackstones Commentaries , voL 2, p. 31. 

“A custom that there should be a Select 
Vestry of an indefinite number of persons, 
continued by election of new members made 
by itself, and not by the parishioners, is valid 
in law. But it seems that it must be part of 
such custom, that there should always be a 
reasonable number, and that the reasonableness 
of the number must decide with reference to 
long-established usage, and to the population of 
the parish, such a custom having existed from 
time immemorial in a parish .” (Golding versus 

Fenn,7th Barmcell and CressweWs Reports , 7 65.) 

“ In the second year of William and Mary, 
a Select Vestry, at Masham, in Yorkshire, was 


274 


established by prescription, as was St. Mary 
at Hill, London, in 1735, in banco regius. 

St. Saviour’s and St. Olave’s, Southwark, 
Select Vestries, on the other hand, for want of 
proof of prescription, were set aside.” (See 
Shaw's Parish Guide.) 

St. Martin’s in the Fields. There are two 
remarkable decisions in this parish, worthy of 
recording, as a proof, if any were wanting, to 
show what trifling quibbles in law are suffi¬ 
cient to overturn justice. 

The first parochial book extant of parish 
records here, is dated 1576, at which period 
there was no vestry. But in 1660, it is on 
record, that there was a Select Vestry, chosen 
by the parishioners at large, as all vestries 
ought to be; and, in 3662, a Select Vestry of 
this parish was confirmed by Gilbert Bishop of 
London, and on the same principle it was again 
confirmed by another Bishop of London, (Hench¬ 
man) in 1672. The present Select Vestry was 
established in its now existing form, by the 
Act of 10th of Anne. 

In 1791 the parishioners applied to the Court 
of King’s Bench to be relieved from the despo¬ 
tism of this “ select,” when the parties agreed 
it should be tried on a feigned issue, and the 
point being mooted, the question was—whether 
from time immemorial a select vestry had existed 
in the parish ? Lord Kenyon said, that unless 


275 * 


this could be shewn to have been always fixed, 
there could be no legal custom ; and the jury 
found, that there had been a select vestry, con¬ 
sisting of forty-nine persons. 

A verdict in favour of the “ select” consequently 
followed, and the parishioners were unsuccessful. 

In 1823, thirty-two years after the above 
decision, the parish books were inspected in 
consequence of some proceedings in the Court 
of King’s Bench, when it was found there had 
not been a “ select vestry” consisting of a fixed 
number of forty-nine, but that it varied at differ¬ 
ent times, and had never consisted of so many, 
and in fact, it never amounted to more than 
twenty-two. This discovery shewed that the 
jury had given their verdict under erroneous 
information, which so firmly seated the “Select,” 
that they continued to exercise their illegal 
powers, levying rates, and performing all their 
parochial functions up to that period 1823. 
The Court of King’s Bench was again applied 
to, and another feigned issue was tried before 
the present chief justice, Lord Tenterden, and 
it was a very strange thing it was not allowed 
to stand on the same terms as it was when 
tried before Lord Kenyon. The chief justice, 
for reasons best known to himself, altered it, by 
striking out the words “ a certain number,” and 
left it to be tried by inserting instead, “whether 
a body of parishioners had acted as a select 
vestry.” 

T 2 


270 


As it was clear that a set of parishioners, 
though not “ a certain number,” as had been 
laid down by Lord Kenyon, had acted as a 
“ select vestry,” a verdict was given as before, 
in favour of them, and against the parishioners, 
and the vestry continued in uncontrouled 
power. 

The existence of a vestry pre-supposes the 
existence of a parish; now, it appears exceed¬ 
ingly doubtful whether St. Giles was one till 
after the dissolution of its hospital, as has been 
argued already at length. (Seepage 82.^ 

It is probable that one of the earliest vestries 
was that mentioned to have been held in 1617, 
(see page 91 ), and that it was appointed by the 
parishioners at large, according to the legitimate 
mode of former periods; and it has been shewn, 
that when it was in contemplation to build the 
second church in 1623, “the parishioners” met 
in open vestry, it being more suited to the im¬ 
portance of the subject. (Seepage 97.) 

From the vestry minutes, (although Parton 
conceals the fact,) we learn that no less than 
eighty-four names were prefixed to this import¬ 
ant document, with the addition of the rector 
himself. Here we have a clear and unequivo¬ 
cal proof that the individuals, composing the 
then vestry, in number twenty-one exclusive of 
the rector, as stated in the first vestry book, 
who no doubt were elected by the parish, con- 


277 


sidered themselves not invested with sufficient 
authority, on important occasions like this, to 
act alone. They therefore resorted to the only 
proper and legal means, where open vestries 
exist, by calling their constituents together, to 
confer on the best means of raising the sums 
required, by rating themselves for that purpose. 
This was a genuine specimen of a constitutional 
open vestry, which even the rector Manwayring, 
with all his high political notions, disdained not 
to assemble with; and one is surprised at the 
sweeping anathema pronounced upon it by 
Parton, which is both disingenuous and dis¬ 
honest—disingenuous, because his argument as 
to the illegality of this meeting is not founded 
on truth—and dishonest, because it was advanced 
for a selfish purpose. 

After the church was rebuilt, the celebrated 
parish record, Doomsday Book, contains a list 
of vestrymen then increased to thirty, besides 
the rector. . \ 

That these composed the whole of the vestry¬ 
men at that period is obvious, because, in 
a book specially intended to commemorate the 
.whole of the names of the benefactors who con¬ 
tributed towards the building, it is more than 
probable the vestrymen would be all included. 

Here again Mr. Parton exhibits his unfaithful¬ 
ness as an historian, by concealing all the names, 
except those of Dr. Manwayring and Sir Wm. 


278 


Seager, neither does he state the number they 
consisted of. He knew how necessary it was 
fora legal vestry, immemorially constituted, to 
be regularly uniform ; and as the number had 
arisen in two years from twenty-two to thirty, 
exclusive of the rector, and subsequently as at 
the present year to thirty-nine, it was prudent 
to exercise silence, that neither his official situa¬ 
tion, or the persons from whom he derived it, 
might be placed in jeopardy. It is well known 
that in the compiling the work alluded to, he 
was greatly assisted by a man of great talent 
and research; and, as rumours will circulate, it is 
said, that in his inquiries he learnt sufficient to 
invalidate the existence of the select vestry, on 
which discovery it became necessary to suppress 
the unwelcome information. 

This is corroborated by the further circum¬ 
stance of his concealing from us the particulars 
of the “ episcopal mandate 9 which “ confirmed ,” as 
he states , “ the existence and powers” of the “vestry 
select by prescriptionand “ which contains the 
various regulations as to their constitution , qualifi¬ 
cations, and government .” 

It was very natural for Mr. Parton to have 
favoured the parishioners with a copy of this 
episcopal mandate, on which he places such 
emphasis; especially, as he is minute to a fault 
in many instances in trifling details, and matters 
of little interest. He was too good a casuist to 


279 


introduce a document, which, in shewing the 
flimsiness of his argument, would at once under- 
mine the superstructure of a select vestry, 
founded on rottenness. A copy of this mandate, 
obtained from the office of the Court of Faculty, 
Doctors’ Commons, is in my possession, and I 
had intended to introduce it verbatim, but the 
late decision renders it unnecessary. I shall 
content myself with inserting the substance of it. 

The mandate in question is dated April 1628, 
and recites, that he, the Bishop of London, 
(George Mountain), had been applied to by 
two parishioners, Abraham Speckart, Esq. and 
Robert Hope, one of the new churchwardens, ta 
appoint a certain number, namely, twenty-five, 
of the better and more ancient sort of the pa¬ 
rishioners of St. Giles in the Fields, to act as 
vestrymen for the said parish. Under the laws 
ecclesiastical and the temporal laws of the land, 
and in conjunction with the chancellor of the 
diocese (Arthur Ducke) he therefore grants the 
prayer of the petition, and appoints the indivi¬ 
duals therein named, as follows :—Roger Man¬ 
wayring, D.D., Sir William Seager, Knight, 
Lawrence Whitaker, Zacherie Bethell, Thomas 
Shepherd, Hans Claxton, and Abraham Spec¬ 
kart, Esqrs.; Martin Basil, John Shelberry, 
Richard Bigg, James Pert, Humphrey Gardi¬ 
ner, William Mewe, Nicholas Bragge, Edward 
Robinson, Andrew Brown, John Brewer, Ro- 


280 


bert Johnson, Matthew Quiere, Robert Hope, 
Richard Sire, Edward Rice, Jereraie Cooke, 
Thomas Harvye, and William Chapman. 
These, including the rector and churchward¬ 
ens, were to be the vestrymen, to manage 
the affairs of the parish peaceably and quietly; 
and as any of these should decease , or remove 
out of the parish, or become scandalous by 
drunkenness, whoredom, &c. others were to be 
chosen by the remaining vestrymen to succeed 
them. Thirteen at the least were to form a 
quorum, among whom the rector and church¬ 
wardens for the time being were to be always 
three. These were to act for the quiet and 
good of the church, parish, and poor; to incite 
to works of charity, and not to interfere in any 
ecclesiastical matters. Should they herein 
intermeddle, and should they do any act at 
their meetings in the absence of the rector, 
this instituted vestry was to be for ever void, as 
if it had never been granted. 

The perusal of this precious morceau will 
convince the most superficial reader, that upon 
it is founded the vestry of St. Giles, which super¬ 
seded the usual mode of election, and which, by 
the indolence of the successive parishioners in 
not asserting their rights, or not understanding 
them, has from that period.become permanent. 

- But although they became permanent as a 
body, they have not continued so in number; 


281 


the bishop prescribed twenty-jive in all, which was 
never to be exceeded, but they have since arisen to 
thirty-nine; by which we may see how power 
innovates, when it becomes seated. 

This instituting of vestries by mandate or 
faculty, was, it should seem, very prevalent about 
this period. We have already noticed one grant¬ 
ed by the Bishop of London to St. Martin’s 
in the Fields in 1662, in which forty-nine per¬ 
sons, together with the vicar and churchwardens, 
were named as a select vestry, and that number 
was to be kept up by elections, to be made by 
ten at least, of those forty-nine, together with 
the vicar and churchwardens. In the year 
1673 this number of ten was reduced to seven 
by another faculty, and these faculties were 
acted upon ever afterwards. Ten out of the 
fourteen vestrymen, exclusive of the vicar and 
the churchwardens, who were present at the 
vestry holden next before the promulgation of 
the first faculty, were part of the forty-nine 
named in that faculty; and it was held, that as 
the vestry appointed by the faculty and since 
continued, was not inconsistent with the vestry 
previously existing by the custom, the custom 
was not destroyed by the parish having accept¬ 
ed the faculty, and acted upon it ever since, 
the faculty not being binding in law, and the vestry 
having power at any time to depart from its direc - 


282 


tions. (Golding v. Fenn , 7th Barmvell and Cress- 
welf s Reports , 765.) 

Formerly, under the common law, every 
parishioner who paid to the church-rate, or scot 
and lot, and no other person, had a right to come 
to these vestry meetings. But this must not 
be understood to exclude the minister, who 
hath a special duty incumbent upon him, and is 
responsible to the bishop, and therefore in every 
parish meeting he presides for the regulation 
and directing the same; and this equally prevails 
whether he be rector or vicar. (See Chitty, &;c.) 

Parton adds “the nature of the parish business 
they (the vestry) had to direct; their mode of 
managing it, and other particulars, are subse¬ 
quently set forth in an answer to the bishop’s 
mandate, dated 1635.” Nothing is more extra¬ 
ordinary than Parton’s conduct in withholding 
both the mandate and answer he alluded to, 
especially as he lays such stress upon them in 
reference to the authority of his vestry. The 
following is the answer in question, dated 6th of 
December, 1635:— 

“ The answer of the churchwardens of the parish 
of St. Giles in the Fields, to the Articles delivered 
unto them from the Right Reverend Father in 
God, the Lord Bishop of London. 

To the first we answer—that our parish business 
of great moment, as the building and finishing 
the church, and fencing in the church-yard, and 


283 


other things of the like nature, are propounded, 
debated, and ordered by a meeting of all the 
parishioners in general; but the ordinary business 
of small moment , as assessments for the poor, 
highways, choice of officers, and other such like 
occasions, are ordered by a select assembly of 
the parishioners, churchwardens, and other 
ancient inhabitants of die parish, which hath 
time out of mind been called a vestry. 

To the second we answer—that we find in an 
ancient church book, mention of a vestry three 
score years past, which, when it had a begin¬ 
ning, we know not; but for the grant thereof 
from the Lord Bishop of London, or his chan¬ 
cellor, we do not certainly know, nor can find 
any, until the year of our Lord 1628, at which 
time it was granted by the then Lord Bishop of 
London, under the chancellor’s seal. 

To the third we answer—that we claim no 
power thereby more than it pleased the Lord 
Bishop of London by his said grant to permit 
unto us, and do make thereof no further use 
in chusing of the officers, and making of such 
rates and assessments as aforesaid, and in paro¬ 
chial matters of the like nature. 

To the fourth we answer—that the fees and 
dues which we receive in our parish for ecclesias¬ 
tical rites are contained in a schedule thereunto 
annexed, whereunto we refer ourselves; which 
fees and dues we receive not by any table of 


284 


fees or dues, but by ancient custom and pre¬ 
scription, time out of mind, as we are informed 
( Vide Vestry Minutes.) 

We have now gone through the two famous 
documents on which Parton has laid so much 
stress as applicable to his select vestry by pre¬ 
scription, and which was composed not of thirty- 
nine, including the rector and churchwardens, 
as he would have us believe, to give a colour to 
the number it now consists of, but of twenty- 
eight, as has been before adverted to. We dis¬ 
cover that bishops’ mandates have no validity, 
and they have been in several instances set 
aside, and the vestries founded on them, as at 
Twickenham and other places. 

The answer above quoted was issued only 
eighty-eight years after the first presentation to 
the church and rectory, according to Newcourt 
and others; and it seems extraordinary, that the 
leading men in that day should possess no better 
information than what was contained in a book 
dated sixty years back, (1575,) wherein was 
mention of a vestry, but whether it was founded 
on prescription or election, or how it was con¬ 
stituted, or when it had a beginning, they knew 
not. They knew clearly that they were appoint¬ 
ed by the mandate of a bishop seven years pre¬ 
viously, and upon that they acted, but this was 
the limit of their knowledge on the subject. 


285 


The existence of the Vestry evidently cannot 
be traced to an early period ; but it can be shewn 
from the bishop’s books of this diocese, that 
rates and burials, &c. were settled in open vestry 
meetings, and especially the church-rate in 1623 
was made at one of these meetings. The right 
of the parishioners to elect churchwardens and 
other officers has been long established by a 
British jury, as may be seen from numerous 
entries in the vestry minutes. The accounts, it 
will be there seen, were also audited by the 
parishioners, not vestrymen; and the vestry, it 
should seem, did not act as a body till the grant 
of the mandate, which was issued in the 3rd of 
Charles I. and prior to the rebellion. 

In 1637, Messrs. Hope the churchwardens, 
and who seem to have been for years leading 
men, were requested to consult of, and propound 
to the vestry, certain orders for the better go vern- 
ingof the vestry business, and meetings. One of 
these was, “ that they should severally subscribe 
ten shillings towards buying a velvet pall for the 
use of the poor, which themselves and families 
were to have the use of at their death, and such 
as refused to subscribe were to be deprived of the 
benefit of the same.” There was another impos¬ 
ing penalties on vestrymen blaspheming the holy 
name of God, cursing, swearing, or otherwise 
indecently behaving himself. 


28 6 


One would have thought they would have 
exercised too much discrimination to have 
allowed members to be elected amongst them, 
capable of such debasement. 

“In 1806, opinion of vestry: That in future 
no gentleman shall become a vestryman of this 
parish, during the time of his serving the office of 
churchwarden.” Query—did this exclude his 
being so by virtue of his office ? 

“ During the usurpation”, Parton says, “no 
appointment of vestrymen appears to have taken 
place,* which, “ he adds” was not extraordinary, 
considering that the then vestry were by the 
puritans honoured with the title of Dr. Hay¬ 
wood’s creatures .” They however managed, 
it appears, to protect their parochial rights, 
except as to the spoliation of their church 
ornaments, and electing a sexton that had been 
appointed by Mr. Case, the puritanical minister, 
and filling up the vacancies of their own body. 

December 21st, 1681.—By the following 
entry in the minutes, it appears, that some of 
the inhabitants at this time were not quite 


*Soon after the Restoration, an act passed requiring select 
vestrymen to take certain oaths, but it did not recognize any 
who assumed that right, there being an express clause to that 
effect in the act. See Act 14/A Charles II. 

On the 16th of October, 1663, the vestrymen appointed 
previous to the Interregnum, subscribed to all the conditions it 
exacted. 



287 


satisfied with the number and constitution of 
the vestry. 

“Whereas Mr. John Morris, and Mr. Natha¬ 
niel Chandler, in behalf of themselves, and 
divers other inhabitants, have requested of the 
vestry, that some addition or alteration may be 
made to the present vestry; the vestry, upon 
debate thereof, do order—That the said John 
Morris, and Nathaniel Chandler, and the rest, 
do give in writing their desires touching the 
premises at the next vestry to be considered of. 
And it is further ordered, that there be a sum¬ 
mons for timely notice to Mr. Dean Sharpe, and 
likewise to all the vestrymen, to desire them to 
meet at a time certain at the vestry-house; and 
that intimation be given in the summons of the 
occasion of that meeting.” 

“Whether these advocates for innovation,” 
adds Mr. Parton, “ afterwards discovered that 
the vestry, which had, as shewn, been time out 
of mind by custom and established usage in¬ 
vested with extensive authorities for the govern¬ 
ment of the parish, could neither increase their 
original number of thirty-six, nor with safety 
make any other alteration, does not appear. 
But some such reason did, in all probability 
occur, for they did not afterwards make any 
further application to the vestry on the subject.” 

These reflections of Parton comprize a most 
sophistical attempt to mystify a transaction 


288 


which’appears in itself both laudable and praise¬ 
worthy. These two patriotic men were no 
doubt aware of the usurpation of their rights as 
parishioners, and the baneful effects resulting 
therefrom, and were aroused to make an effort to 
rid the parish of the odious tyranny ; but prob¬ 
ably they were appalled by the ex pence, the 
unfavourableness of the slavish times they lived 
in, and perhaps the little support they met 
with from their fellow-parishioners. 

Be this as it may, it is pleasing to know that 
a spirit of resistance existed at this remote period, 
which had for its object the lessening the parish 
despotism, which might have been productive 
of the happiest effects, had it been better advo¬ 
cated and persevered in. They are here called 
“ innovaters,” who afterwards were supposed to 
have made thediscovery, ‘‘that the vestry which 
had, as has been shewn, been time out of mind 
by custom and established usuage invested with 
extensive authority for the government of the 
parish, could neither increase their original num¬ 
ber of thirty-six, nor with safety make any 
other alteration.” 

The whole of this long sentence is made up 
of sophisms; and it is melancholy to contem¬ 
plate such false reasoning, when emanating from 
an historian of intelligence and research. 
Neither has he “shewn,” nor will it be ever 
“discovered ” that the vestry has been established 


289 


by custom and usage , time out of mind . It would 
seem that he purposely avoided the production 
of the mandate, and the answer to it, to con¬ 
ceal the cloven foot of his argument, knowing 
that the vestry had not been originally in num¬ 
ber thirty-six , but, as has been shewn from the 
minutes, twenty-two only, exclusive of the rector 
and churchwardens, till it was afterwards varied. 

The “ time out of mind” he knew had no proof 
beyond anno 1575, by the shewing of the vestry 
themselves in 1635, as stated in the answer 
alluded to, consequently at this period of “ in* 
novation as he terms it, the vestry could not 
have had an existence, judging by this hypothe¬ 
sis, more than 106 years. The vestry has 
clearly innovated from an elective body to a 
despotism, that infringed on those rights of which 
Britons make their boast; but we hope it is 
now for ever destroyed, for the future permanent 
advantage of the parishioners. 

I contend then, that after the most careful 
and most unprejudiced inquiry, I see no claim 
the vestry ever had to its assumed power, other 
than usurpation ; it clearly having no derivation 
from prescription, election, or act of parliament. 

We now enter on some particulars respecting 
the vestry of the younger part of the district, 
the parish of St. George Bloomsbury; its powers 
as defined by several acts of parliament, and 
its disputes with the mother parish of St. Giles, 
u 


290 


The act of the 10th of Queen Anne, for 
Building Fifty New Churches, authorized the five 
commissioners therein appointed to nominate a 
certain number of inhabitant householders of 
each new parish to be enrolled in the Court of 
Chancery as vestrymen, to manage their several 
parish affairs and churches, in conjunction with 
the vestries of the old parishes from which they 
were abstracted ; but should such parishes not 
have vestries, then they were to be modelled 
according to that of St. Martin’s in the Fields. 

Here then is the constitution of St. George’s 
vestry, the powers of which we shall see de¬ 
scribed by Partonasso ill defined, as to leave it 
doubtful whether it was intended to conduct 
merely its ecclesiastical affairs, or those of the 
parish generally. Certain it is, that the vestries, 
of other new parishes put the former interpre¬ 
tation upon this comprehensive act, and con¬ 
tinue to do so in their ministerial functions to 
this day.* 


* Maitland took this view of the subject in his History of 
London, written a few years after the building St. George’s 
Church, Bloomsbury, and unquestionably at a period when 
the acts of 10th and 11th of Anne were best understood. He 
states that “ the vestry of St. George’s Church, Queen 
Square, (one of the fifty by the way), like its neighbour St. 
George Bloomsbury, only regards church affairs, for all mat¬ 
ters relating to the poor, (except about £100 per annum sa- 
erament money, which is given to the poor at discretion), are 
still under the direction of the High Hoi born liberty, for which 
it was taken.” It is observable, in confirmation of Maitland’s 



291 


Parton states, that <f the commissioners 
for building fifty new churches caused one to 
be erected near Bloomsbury Market, and on 
the 8th March (no year), a Select Vestry was 
appointed for the new parish, consisting of an 
equal number of members with that of St. Giles. 
From this period the powers of the Vestry of 
the old parish were narrowed; but how far, was 
a subject of doubt for many years afterwards.” 
It is admitted by this chain of argument, that 
the acts upon which the new parish stood, were 
at least very vague and difficult of comprehen¬ 
sion ; but we shall see more on these points as 
we proceed. 

“ 1733 (April 27th.) A committee was ap¬ 
pointed to treat with a committee of the vestry 
of the new parish, on any giatters that might 
occur relative to the two parishes. The matters 
then referred to were productive of repeated 
discussion, which in the year 1739 assumed 
a hostile shape; for, on the 23rd of April in that 
year, an application was made by the vestry of 
the new parish to the vestry of the old one, 
for a formal meeting of the two vestries, in 
order to ascertain the monies and rates to be 
assessed within the limits of the old parish, 

position, that the poor (and other) rates are to this day ma¬ 
naged in open vestry in that parish (Queen Square) confor¬ 
mable to the implied meaning of the Acts in question; no 
other construction having been given them during the lapse of 
now ninety years. 



292 


pursuant to a clause in the act of 10th of Anne. 
But the Vestry of the old parish declined such 
meeting; being of opinion that the officers and 
vestry of that parish were not obliged to so meet; 
the clause alluded to in such act seeming 
only to give them power, if they should think 
jit to use it; and directions were given for ap¬ 
pointing the officers, and making the rates (over 
both parishes) as usual * 

“ The vestry of St. George Bloomsbury 
having resolved to resist the Scavenger’s Rate, 
made by the Vestry and Officers of St. Giles's, 
and to try by a feigned issue the point in de¬ 
bate between the two parishes, the vestry of 
the latter parish, under the advice of Serjeant 
Wynne, declined such trial; and ordered, that 
all officers of thatfparish who should assist in 
collecting and levying the scavenger’s rates in 
St. George Bloomsbury, should be indemnified 
at the charge of the parish of St. Giles: (and 
the vestry of the former parish passed a reso¬ 
lution to indemnify those who resisted payment.) 
A rate for that purpose was accordingly made on the 
inhabitants of St. Giles , including that part of Ihe 


* Nothing could be adduced more decidedly, to shew that 
the appointment of St. George’s vestry was for no other de¬ 
finite purpose than the conducting its ecclesiastical affairs, as 
Maitland has argued ; and, if this be admitted, it goes to prove 
that no legal vestry exists in that parish, in the extensive sense 
in which they have exercised their assumed powers. 



293 


parish then called Bloomsbury” Remark here, 
that this was imposed by the vestry of St. 
Giles alone! 

“ December 13th, 1739. A committee was 
appointed to treat with a committee of the ves¬ 
try of St. George Bloomsbury, and to settle 
about the scavenger’s rates, and also as to con¬ 
siderable demands made on behalf of the latter 
parish on the joint stock ; when, after a long 
discussion, all matters in difference were (for 
that time) amicably adjusted to the satisfaction 
of both vestries; and the scavenger’s and other 
rates were agreed to extend over both parishes 
as usual.” 

The following detail is very observable, es¬ 
pecially as coming from Parton. “ The con¬ 
struction of the several acts of parliament, by 
virtue whereof the parish of St. George Blooms¬ 
bury was created; the powers of each Vestry 
whilst acting in its separate capacity, and the 
separate interest of each parish (or rather por¬ 
tion of the old district) were for nearly forty 
years the subjects of frequent discussion, which 
was not always carried on in the most amicable 
manner; the object of the mother parish ap¬ 
pearing to be, to keep the daughter in leading 
strings, whilst the latter, like other young la¬ 
dies, sighed for emancipation.” 

“ 3rd December, 1771. A proposal was 
received from the vestry of St. George Blooms- 


294 


bury for a partial separation of the two pa¬ 
rishes, relative to the nightly watch, which Was 
referred to the joint vestry.” 

17th December, (same year.) Upon a propo¬ 
sition of St. George Bloomsbury vestry, in 
its separate capacity, it was resolved by St. 
Giles’s vestry unanimously, “ That any meet¬ 
ing of the vestries in separate capacities, for 
the purpose of considering of any application 
to parliament for powers to rate the inhabitants 
of their parishes to any parochial rate, is con¬ 
trary to the customs and usages of these pa¬ 
rishes, and to the intent and meaning of the 
statutes for establishing their united interests.” 
Why, this point, which they here so furiously 
decry, had but a short time before been prac¬ 
tised by themselves in their separate capacity 
against the meaning of the statutes ! Where 
then was their consistency ? 

“ 1772, January 3rd. The vestry of Blooms¬ 
bury having resolved to proceed in an applica¬ 
tion to parliament to obtain an act for esta¬ 
blishing a nightly watch within that parish, it 
was by the vestry of St. Giles resolved ‘ that 
any attempt of a select vestry to separate two 
parishes united by law is dishonourable and 
unjustifiable.’ Other resolutions of a like im¬ 
port, couched in strong terms, were passed, 
and a committee was appointed to oppose the 
intended application.” 


295 


“17th July, (same year.) The committee 
reported, that upon an investigation into the 
customs and usages of the two parishes, by a 
committee of the House of Commons, it was 
resolved, than in levying the watch rate, the 
two parishes should be considered as ohe pa¬ 
rish, in like manner as they are in collecting 
the poor and church rates ; and that the bill 
had been altered accordingly.” 

“ The several Acts for the support and 
management of the poor; and for paving, 
cleansing, watching, and lighting the two pa¬ 
rishes, having removed all doubts as to the 
powers of the separate vestries, and the pro¬ 
bability of their interests being separated ; and 
it appearing to the vestry that the estate in 
Parker’s Lane, with other estates and donations, 
were given to, or in trust for, this parish, long 
before the passing of certain acts of parlia¬ 
ment, made in the 9th and 10th years of the 
reign of Queen Anne, by virtue whereof the 
parish of St. George Bloomsbury was, (so far 
as relates to spiritual purposes only) taken out 
and separated from the rest of this parish, it 
was resolved, 4 that at the times of such de¬ 
vises and donations being made, and at this 
time the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and 
that of St. George Bloomsbury, were and are 
one parish or district for all temporal purposes, 
and that the said devises and donations were 


296 


intended to be for the benefit of the whole dis¬ 
trict, which before the passing of the said Acts 
did form the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields; ’ 
this vestry is therefore of opinion and do 
hereby resolve * that the said several estates, 
funds, and donations, with the rents, interest, 
dividends, and produce thereof, be in future 
under the management of the said joint vestry, 
due caution being observed to prevent rever¬ 
sions and forfeitures.” 

Thirdly:—We are now to consider these 
conflicting vestries in their united or joint ca¬ 
pacities, the latter appellation being now first 
introduced, and which is said to have origi¬ 
nated with Mr. Serjeant Wynne. 

From this period, 1772, a close union has 
been formed between the two vestries, and 
assumed the designation they now bear, “ The 
Joint Vestry of St. Giles in the Fields and St. 
George Bloomsbury.” 

All the former bickerings between these 
anomalous bodies seem to have subsided very 
suddenly and unaccountably, both of them 
agreeing to take the affairs and burdens of 
office upon themselves quietly and peaceably, 
no doubt with the sincerest disinterestedness, 
thinking it would be too much to trouble their 
fellow-parishioners with the management of 
their own affairs. 


297 


Two years after this portentous event, it was 
found necessary to have a new act framed (the 
act of 14th George III.) to define their powers, 
and for other purposes ; and this is the Act on 
which they have jointly founded their autho¬ 
rity. (See Abstracts of Acts,) 

This Act strikes me as miserably de¬ 
fective, inasmuch as it presupposes the exis¬ 
tence of a Vestry legally sanctioned by pre¬ 
scription, or in some other constitutional way 
establishedwhereas, that portion of it appli¬ 
cable to the parish of St. Giles had no other 
claim to power than what it has acquired by 
assumption, and in its separate capacity it had 
always imposed rates on the whole district, as 
it appears to me, until 1772, when the coalition 
was formed. 

In regard to the new parish, the vestry ap¬ 
pointed by the commissioners for building fifty 
new churches, by virtue of 10th of Anne, were 
empowered to nominate, and did nominate a 
vestry selected from the inhabitant househol¬ 
ders, who were, according to one of its clauses, 
enrolled in the Court of Chancery; but its 
powers, as Parton affirms, were very ill defined ; 
nor does the Act of 3rd George II. appear quite 
calculated to remove the difficulty. We can¬ 
not therefore, on the whole, compliment the 
legislature of that period for enlightened views 
on the subject then before them. It has re- 


298 


cognized these vestries in their united capaci¬ 
ty, without considering that if the former one 
has no real foundation, the superstructure of 
the other, which has been erected upon it, will 
sink and fall with it.* 

On reverting to the statute of the 14th 
George III. it is impossible to withhold as¬ 
tonishment on reflecting on the vestry’s care¬ 
lessness in not having it so framed as to meet 
future doubts on the subject: this they might 
probably have then effected without difficulty; 
but, secure in their fancied authority, they only 
sued for regulations, leaving themselves open to 
future animadversion as to the power they held, by 
^n assumption too hateful to conciliate the respect 
of the parishioners.t 

Secondly:—The making it imperative to fix 
the rates in conjunction with the churchwardens 
and overseers is truly ridiculous, as any opposi¬ 
tion to the will of the vestry must always be 

* It has been ruled, that where acts of parliaments recog¬ 
nize vestries incidentally, they give no value to them, if they 
arc constitutionally invalid. The act adverted to does not 
therefore invest the vestries in question with legal authority, 
if they cannot shew that they are so by prescription, by 
election of the parishioners, or that they derive their power 
from express parliamentary enactment. 

f And it is equally remarkable, that during the disputes 
pending forty years between the parishes, no question was 
raised, as we are aware of, as to the validity of the old vestry. 
It was so natural to resort to this, as a counteraction to the 
tyranny it exercised over Bloomsbury. 



299 


unavailing, consisting, as they do, of sixteen on¬ 
ly, whilst the Select in number amounts toseventy 
four. Hence the attendance of those officers de¬ 
generates into a mere nominal duty, and they are 
usually treated with as little ceremony as me¬ 
nials, when they have met on these occasions 
twice a year—the only opportunity the overseers 
have been allowed to enter that august assembly* 

Thirdly:—The Act prescribes no rule for 
making rates and assessments, they are left to 
the caprice of the Select, and are exacted with the 
most disgraceful inequality, as I shall hereafter 
exemplify. The parties however who feel 
themselves aggrieved have the privilege afforded 
them of appealing to the Quarter Sessions at 
their own costs, whilst the respondents, who 
impose the rates complained of, pay theirs out 
of the parish funds. 

With such disadvantages there is but little 
temptation to seek redress; and this and other 
reasons contribute effectually to induce the 
oppressed parishioner to sit down quietly under 
the injury, tamely suffering the money to be 
extracted from his pocket by this self-elected 
junto, having no voice in its distribution. 
Can despotism be carried farther than this in a 
state priding itself on its freedom ? 

Fourthly:—But nothing in the act exhibits 
such palpable inefficiency, as the clause which 
interdicts officers from furnishing contracts of 


300 


“ goods, materials, .or provisions for their own 
profit in the maintenance of the poor.” It im¬ 
poses no penalty on those who offend, and is 
therefore constantly violated with impunity. 
The offence being indictable, acts as a security 
to the offender; there being no instance, that I 
am aware of, of the vestry resorting to such 
a mode of punishment. 

Having thus far adverted to the several acts 
of parliament applicable to these parishes, and 
which have invested the anomalous ‘ Select’ 
with power, under the presumption of their 
being legally appointed by prescription or 
otherwise, we may now enter upon some his¬ 
torical and critical inquiries as to the exercise 
of that authority, added to some particulars of 
the opposition raised against them. 

There can be but little doubt of these select 
vestries in their varied form, ruling the district 
of the united parishes during more than two 
hundred years ; and, they have done so quite in¬ 
dependant of the inhabitant householders. Whe¬ 
ther this arbitrary power excited remon¬ 
strance and opposition on their part, we have 
no earlier instance than what is afforded us by the 
minute on record respecting Nathaniel Chandler 
and John Morris. It stands, however, as a 
solitary fact of a departure from that culpable 
tameness which in parochial matters have too 


301 


much disgraced the spirit that characterizes 
Britons. 

It is true, that a laudable resistance to the 
encroaching attempts of St. Giles’s vestry was 
exerted by that of St. George’s Bloomsbury 
during many years, (forty) ; but it was, after all, 
power contending for supremacy, and, in point 
of fact, of no real utility to the mass of pa¬ 
rishioners. That secrecy, which is always ft 
sure indication of something wrong, has been 
the invariable conduct of these bodies, what¬ 
ever changes have arisen in their constitution, 
and certainly at no trifling cost to the pa¬ 
rishioners. If sickening disgust was produced 
in their minds at the conduct of these men 
“ dressed” not “ in a little brief authority,” it 
resulted from surmises : nothing could be eli¬ 
cited from a conclave, which, shunning publicity, 
set investigation at defiance. A few patriotic 
individuals in these parishes were not unob¬ 
servant of the unconstitutional nature of select 
vestries, and watched their proceedings with a 
jealous eye during many years. 

At length, in April 1828, what was begun in 
infancy ripened to maturity, and an association 
was gradually formed, determined to investi¬ 
gate the receipts and expenditure in which 
they were so much interested, and examine the 
foundation of their acquired power. A placard, 
explanatory of these views, was issued April 


302 


4, 1828, bearing the signature of George Rogers, 
of 58, High Street, St. Giles, and pretty widely 
disseminated, which had the intended effect of 
rousing the inhabitant householders of both 
parishes, who added subscriptions to their 
names, on embarking in so good a cause. One 
of the first measures adopted was, that of wait¬ 
ing upon the vestry clerk, by deputation, to 
demand to see the accounts. 

I was selected as one of the three on this 
occasion; and although we had heard reports 
on the subject, we were not the less surprised 
on being told, that there were no books of pa¬ 
rochial accounts earlier than the date anno. 
1822! 

Some explanation may be necessary to elu¬ 
cidate this supposed hiatus , which I will endea¬ 
vour to adduce here. Mr. Parton held the office 
of vestry clerk, virtually, during many years, 
inasmuch as he had been the principal manager 
for Mr. William Robertson, the former vestry 
clerk, who died in 1814. On his decease, he 
succeeded him entirely; and no man could pos¬ 
sess more influence over the joint vestry than 
he did during the whole of his future life, which 
terminated in 1822. All the accounts of 
the parishes were in his grasp, whether it re¬ 
garded the poor, lighting, watching, paving, 
the taxes, burials, or the department of the 
law- He was a leviathan in office, holding no 


303 


less than fourteen at one time; and, as he was 
much troubled with gouty affections, he was 
incapable of active exertion, and his clerks 
were mostly in requisition to conduct his mul¬ 
tiform duties. 

Plausible, without much apparent capacity, 
the authority of the vestry might be said to be 
concentrated in himself; he dictated and ar¬ 
ranged the assessments and rates, and audited 
the accounts; at least, his assurance to the 
vestrymen, that he had examined and corrected 
them, was never doubted, and their signatures 
were unhesitatingly given with implicit confi¬ 
dence. In this way, year after year, did this 
inefficient vestry pass the enormous accounts of 
two extensive parishes; and we have no proof of 
any other management, or rather mis-manage¬ 
ment, during nearly 200 preceding years, since 
this excrescence of a vestry has usurped the 
reins of our parish government. 

When Parton died, his accounts were found 
involved in confusion, many of them having 
been written in pencil; added to which, they 
were soon afterwards said to have disappeared, 
and consequently the first books of receipts 
and expenditure bear no earlier date than 
1822. What became of the antecedent ones 
was a mere matter of conjecture, and a 
variety of reports were put in circulation, 


304 


concerning an event so disgraceful as to be 
without parallel in parochial annals. 

Some contended, that the vestrymen, asham¬ 
ed, for once, of their confiding negligence, and 
finding it impossible to reconcile the difficulties 
these books presented in regard to the application 
of the parish funds, consigned them to the ilames. 
On the other hand, the vestrymen intimated 
« that probably Earle destroyed them whilst 
he had them in his custody, as successor to 
Parton, to avoid the exposition which implicat¬ 
ed them both. Such was the conflict of opi¬ 
nion, about which it was difficult to decide ; but 
the impression on the public mind was, that 
considerable sums were discovered in them, in 
the shape of defalcations; it cannot therefore 
be surprising, if the whole occurrence, myste¬ 
rious as it was, excited a strong feeling of indig¬ 
nation. Nothing can better illustrate the evil 
of select vestries, it being more than probable 
that one formed upon an elective principle, 
would have proved an effectual check on the 
misapplication of the parish funds, and thereby 
rendered the destruction of the accounts, on the 
principle of “ dead men telling no tales/’ un¬ 
necessary. And, as the election of the vestry 
would have been salutary to the parish interests, 
so would that of their clerk, who ought to be 
annually appointed, as a test of his integrity; 
for if his accounts, on auditing, should be found 


305 


when the year expired, neither fair nor correct, 
he would be driven from his seat of office, as 
he ought to be.* 

* In the pamphlet entitled “ Refutation of Charges against 
the Vestry,” referred to at page 268, some observations are 
made relative to the application of Messrs. Rogers, Laroche, 
and myself, May 16th, 1828, to inspect the parochial ac¬ 
counts at the vestry clerk’s office, and credit is taken for the 
Vestry giving subsequent permission, under certain limitations. 
It then adds, “ the same paragraph that imputes to the Vestry 
the refusal of inspecting accounts” (alluding to a placard of 
Mr. Rogers), states, that “ no books of account of receipts 
and expenditure exist prior to 1822, except the banker’s 
book.” “ That the accounts were not kept in the same sys- 
timatic order that has been observed for the last seven years 
is true, but some credit will be allowed to the Vestry of the 
;present day , for regular accounts having been kept through 
that period ; and the accounts of few parishes in London, of 
equal extent and population,” (there are only two, Mary-la- 
bonne and Pancras), will be found in a better state. 
From the books, or means of making out such accounts 
prior to 1822, copious returns have been made to fhe com¬ 
mittee of the House of Commons, recently sitting. In those 
accounts, the receipts and expenditure of the parishes are 
stated from 1774 to 1828, and the balances regularly brought 
forward; and this is a sufficient answer to the accusation of 
accounts having been destroyed.” Being one of the parish¬ 
ioners who called on Mr. Robinson, to demand a view of the 
accounts, I aver, that he most unequivocally gave us, in 
substance, the information quoted by Mr. Rogers, and we 
each made memorandums of it at the time. I am unwilling to 
impute any improper motives for this evasion, but the fact is 
as Mr. Rogers has stated it; and as a lover of truth, I am 
bound to confirm it, although I have long ceased to have any 
direct communication with him. It is well known that the 
Vestry favoured the opinion of Earle’s concealing the books, 
or destroying them; and had it not happened that one of his 
clerks (Mr. Ansell), gave a different version to this affair, it is 
doubtful whether the required returns would have been made 

x 



306 


The direction of our parochial affairs, owing 
to the indolence of the Select, has usually 
devolved on the vestry clerks, who by an easy 
transition, became the masters instead of the 
servants of the parishes. Security never having 
been required of those officers until the appoint¬ 
ment of Mr. Robinson, they have too often 
practiced abuses with impunity, aided by the 
incautions conduct of those from whence they 


o the committee of the House of Commons in so copious a 
orm. When Earle was dismissed, the Vestry resolved his 
lerks should participate in the exclusion, and Ansell was one 
•f them; but, like a prudent man, having the custody of the 
»ooks, he would not resign them until he had made a regular 
inventory of the whole. Ten days, he states, were thus 
employed, they were so numerous; after which he delivered 
them to Mr. Robinson, the new vestry clerk, and to Mr. Todd, 
the then churchwarden, taking their receipts and vouchers for 
the same: 

He informed me that they consisted of an immense number, 
dated from 1617 to 1826, and that the vestry had refused to 
compensate him for this necessary and laudable trouble. 

As to the regularity with which the accounts have been 
kept during the last seven years, the abstracts published by 
the Vestry, on which we shall have to remark, is the best 
comment on that assertion. 

But “ the Vestry considers it is concerned with the present, 
not the past state of the parishes.” This seems to convey an 
imputation on a part of that body; who, having been more or 
less numbered with the select since 1794 (thirty-five years), 
have been unmindful of their duties; for, had they not been so, 
the vaunting here implied, futile as it is, would have had no 
Utterance. The conclusion of this defence, under the head of 
“ Accounts,” is lame enough, and the whole is a practical 
illustration of the absurdity of self-elected Select Vestries. 



307 


derived their appnotraent. It is well known 
that the vestry clerks were formerly entrusted 
with the payment of nearly all the claims of 
tradesmen and others, and we know the result 
has not always proved beneficial to the inte¬ 
rests of the joint parishes. 

The vestrymen, in 1781 and 1810, published 
and revised some excellent regulations for the 
overseers and others, entitled “ Hints and 
Cautions” but they omitted to prescribe plans 
for the safe distribution of the funds entrusted 
to their care, and especially, in reference to the 
relief of the poor. 

I was appointed, in 1814, an overseer of the 
parish of Bloomsbury; and, on attending the 
board at the Workhouse, I was struck with the 
manner of conducting the relief of the casual 
and other poor. On the table was spread out 
£40 or £50, in silver; near which sat the clerk 
with an elevated desk before him, ready to 
minute down the sums paid to the paupers. A 
churchwarden presided at the head of the table, 
and the then overseers sat with him, to direct 
the distribution of the money. Some of the poor 
had one shilling, others one shilling and six¬ 
pence, and some had more given them ; and 
the clerk, who knew them, generally offered 
his opinion, which guided us in the amount. 
In this way we were engaged, usually, from 
two till seven o’clock, when we adjourned, 
x 2 


308 


after relieving from 400 to 500 of these pau¬ 
pers, who consisted chiefly of the lowest and 
most dissolute of the Irish people. But the 
worst part of the affair was, the not placing a 
check on the monies thus distributed; neither 
these, or the balance left, ever went through 
the scrutiny of the officers, but every thing of 
this kind was left to the mercy of the clerk to 
settle as he pleased. 

These boards for relieving the poor were 
regularly held, at least, five times a week, 
where the same confiding mode was always 
adopted; and certainly, if a man placed in 
that situation might be trusted with untold 
gold at first, such a careless system was well 
calculated to corrupt him. It was, in truth, a 
temptation almost irresistable, and I contem¬ 
plated it as portentous of much evil, and in its 
tendency extremely mischievous to the vital 
interests of the parishioners. 

Several of my colleagues viewed it with the 
same feelings, and we conferred together on a 
plan to remedy the evil, but so many obstacles 
presented themselves, and so many doubts pre¬ 
vailed as to our being supported in the attempt, 
that we passed through the year without effect¬ 
ing any thing, as I am ashamed now to acknow¬ 
ledge. An overseer generally goes into office, 
with no other qualification than inexperience. 


309 


and he is glad to escape hastily from his duties 
to his business, and he travels through his term 
of probation, in subserviency to the church¬ 
wardens, knowing they have usually served the 
office of overseer and sidesman previously, 
which he presumes fits them essentially to 
direct his conduct. If submission to the judg¬ 
ment of others, without due consideration, is 
justifiable, it finds an apology here; albeit, I 
am far from vindicating such a prostration of 
the human understanding upon abstract prin¬ 
ciples. 

Any clerk so situated, had an opportunity 
of appropriating large sums to himself, by 
setting down in his book one shilling and 
six-pence for one shilling, and so on, as the 
paupers were paid, and which book was placed, 
as the relief proceeded, out of the sight of the 
officers ; besides which, he had the remnant of 
the silver, to enable him to set down the names 
of many who were not relieved. 

Nothing was more easy than to abstract, for 
his own use, a considerable sum each board 
day, and there had long been strong suspicions 
of that practice at the period alluded to, and 
it reflects the highest disgrace on the Vestry, 
in allowing such irregularity to continue un- 
controuled. 

I mentioned this shameful abuse to Mr. Tuely, 
who, a few years afterwards, was appointed 


310 


overseer; and going into office with the ad¬ 
vantage of my information, he determined to 
try a different course, with the aid of his 
brother overseers. He succeeded in gaining 
their concurrence, and ever afterwards, on 
their entering the board-room, the money was 
counted, and attested by them all, and the 
same was done on the termination of each 
day’s duties, and has been always continued. 

This regulation was determined upon in 
the Vestry, and adopted in direct opposition 
to the Select, and no doubt it has been pro¬ 
ductive of much benefit to these parishes. 

It was plainly the duty of these Select Ves¬ 
trymen to have laid down such a plan as 
would obviate peculation they alone possessed 
the power of effectual controul; and their not 
doing so, speaks volumes against the system 
of rule they assumed. 

It appears to have been the practice for 
tradesmen and others to send the accounts, due 
to them from the parish, to the vestry clerk, 
and the natural way would have been for the 
“ Select” to send them notice to attend in the 
vestry to be paid in person, on their tendering 
their receipts. Instead of this, they gave cheques 
upon the parish bankers to the vestry clerk 
for the time being, leaving the payments to 
his discretion. In this way sums to a large 
amount passed through his hands, thereby 


311 


inciting temptation where security was never 
given. Such recklessness cannot be too highly 
censured, it was too much to expect human 
nature capable of resisting the lure afforded it, 
and the consequence has been most injurious 
to the parishes. Report says that these dis¬ 
interested vestrymen formerly paid no rates, 
and who can deny that compensation was due 
to them for the eminent services they have so 
faithfully conferred upon the confiding pa¬ 
rishioners ! 


312 


CHAPTER IX. 

Parochial Abases continued — Poor's Rate and 
Misapplication critically examined—Partial 
and unequal Assessments—Audit Committee and 
Gallindds Report — Whitton Estate , and Parish 
Jobs—Vestry Mismanagement—Progress of 
Reform , and a variety of miscellaneous infor¬ 
mation . 

Before we enter upon the extravagant waste 
of the public money of the parishioners, as 
evinced in the accounts extant, it is necessary 
the whole of them, as abstracted by order of the 
vestry, should be presented to the readers. 

It is however necessary to premise, that the 
publication of these abstracts was never per¬ 
mitted till 1822; and as the books, prior to that 
date, have been withheld, we have no means of 
ascertaining what occurred at former periods. 
Even the abstracts in question were, not intend¬ 
ed for the prying inquisition of the parishioners 
at large, they were distributed to the vestrymen, 
and to the officers only, prior to the determined 
opposition the vestry encountered in 1828. That 
select body, it should be remembered, resisted 


313 


their being printed during many years, until the 
commendable perseverance of one individual 
amongst them finally triumphed. Mr. Parton 
used to present to the churchwardens a manu¬ 
script abstract annually, drawn up very loosely, 
and this comprised all the information he con¬ 
descended to give, and they, and the Vestry, 
were the only persons favoured with it, meagre 
as it was. 

Another extraordinary feature of this manage¬ 
ment, was the not appointing an audit commit¬ 
tee until the year 1822, when they elected ten 
from each parish vestry, and the four church¬ 
wardens. The institution of such a committee, 
from their own body, was both suspicious and 
ill calculated to be useful to the parishes. Upon 
what principle but despotism, and a contempt 
for the inhabitant householders, could a body of 
men presume to sit in judgment on their own 
acts, by auditing their own accounts ? 

But without pursuing an inquiry into the 
injustice involved in such an appointment, 
about which every candid mind must come to 
the same conclusion, we proceed to give the 
analysis of the yearly accounts, reserving our far¬ 
ther observations on the glaring mistakes of this 
committee in their ministerial capacity. 

The gross rental, as applicable to St. Giles’s 
parish, is stated at much below the real amount, 
from a system of partiality which seems inter- 


314 


minable in its operation, unless Bloomsbury 
insists upon a remedy in language not to be 
misunderstood. It is an incontrovertible fact, 
that whilst the new part of the parish is rated 
at nearly a rack rental, the old part is scarcely 
rated upon the average at three-fifths.* 

It is competent for any parishioner to inspect 
the rate books whenever he pleases at the clerk’s 
office, at the Workhouse, when he may make 
his own comparisons and comments as he no¬ 
tices the various assessments. From George 
Street to a few doors east of Kingsgate Street, 
comprising the north side of Broad Street, St. 
Giles, in a line east of Holborn, is in Blooms¬ 
bury parish, whilst the opposite or south side 
of those streets is in St. Giles’s parish. He will 
find in almost all instances houses of the same de¬ 
scription assessed on the former side at least two- 
fifths higher than the latter. Mr. Mills, the pre¬ 
sent churchwarden, lives at No. 110, High Hol¬ 
born, and is assessed at £75, whilst an opposite 
neighbour, with premises equally extensive, is as¬ 
sessed at £36. Examine the ratebook in reference 


* The king’s collectors are the assessors, and the poor’s rale 
is regulated in these parishes by them, which is an inversion 
of the law; the king’s assessment being usually founded on 
the rates made for the poor. 

The irregularity of assessments tends to inflict great in¬ 
justice upon the rate-payers who are fully assessed, in con¬ 
sequence of their having to pay the proportion unpaid by those 
who are under assessed. 



315 


to Lincoln’s Inn Fields, Great Queen Street, Dru¬ 
ry Lane, and all the intermediate neighbour¬ 
hood from the vicinity of the Seven Dials south, 
to Great Russell Street north, and from the 
east side of Tottenham Court Road to near 
Chancery Lane, and there will be found abun¬ 
dant proofs of my position. The houses in the 
elder parish compared with Bloomsbury are as 
three to two, and yet the former is capriciously 
placed on a rental of only £126,196 : 10s. and 
the other at the excessive one of £137,949 :10s.! 
A thoughtless parishioner of the favoured pa¬ 
rish, uninformed by reflection, would say, yes, 
it is true that we are not placed on an equal 
footing with you, but consider what a number 
of small houses are found in our streets and 
courts. I admit the premises of this argu¬ 
ment, but not the deductions drawn from 
them. Bloomsbury too has many small tene¬ 
ments, although it abounds with houses of 
consequence, but it has no legitimate claim to 
the honour of being taxed beyond the reasona¬ 
ble proportion of equity. Let the elder parish 
be viewed with just discrimination, and a 
greater number of consequential houses will 
be discovered, sufficient to counterbalance any 
weakness deducible from such reasoning. Take 
a survey of the streets already named, and then 
advance to the north side and part of the south 
side of Great Russell Street; from thence, after 


316 


taking the adjacent street, proceed to Bedford 
Square, Gower Streets, Alfred Place, North 
and South Crescents, &c. &c. The result will 
convince a common observer, that under every 
circumstance, St. Giles’s parish is assessed on 
the lowest computation at upwards of £40,000 a 
year too low. 

This is a monstrous state of injustice, against 
which Bloomsbury has a just cause for com¬ 
plaint; and it is surprising to find such a dispo¬ 
sition on the part of the favoured to blink this 
question. With patriotic exertions to lessen 
abuses, they have not shewn themselves hos¬ 
tile to this existing evil of the greatest magni¬ 
tude. Nothing is more obvious on this subject 
than the constant selfish conflict of St. Giles’s 
parish against Bloomsbury: it has been evinced 
during many years; nor can I hope that the 
interests of the latter will be fairly compre¬ 
hended, now the triumph over the Select Ves¬ 
try system seems completed. Accustomed to 
the privilege of being favoured in their assess¬ 
ments, these advocates for elective vestries, in 
the fruition of their hopes and expectations, 
will still deem it ill timed to place themselves on 
an equal footing with the younger parish. 
Let the inhabitant householders of Bloomsbury 
look to this, if they value their too long ne¬ 
glected rights, and let them no longer submit 


317 

to a gross unreasonable partiality which op¬ 
presses them.* 


* A placard was issued by Mr. Rogers, dated 1828, which 
contains this singular admission. “ The consequence of this 
select and pernicious mode of parochial government, has been 
a system of jobbing, extravagance, and defalcation, and to 
such an extent, that, in order to support the expense, it has 
been necessary to assess the greater part of the houses, 
particularly those in the squares and adjacent streets , to such 
an exorbitant amount, that the sums paid for parochial taxa¬ 
tion, absolutely exceed the demands of the government; con¬ 
sequently many reputable inhabitants have been driven from 
these to the neighbouring parishes, where the parochial funds 
are administered with economy.” 

In a letter from the same hand, addressed to the gentlemen of 
the Russell Institution, dated January 31, 1829; he says, 
“The contest hilherto has been almost wholly by the means 
and exertions of the tradesmen of the parishes, the gentlemen 
(with some few, but splendid exceptions,) having taken but 
little part in the matter; and this apathy appears the more 
extraordinary, as it is well known that the houses in the 
squares and the adjacent streets, are rated most unjustifiably 
high, compared with the other parts of the parishes , and also 
with most disgraceful inequality , as compared with each 
other. It cannot, for one moment, be supposed that the 
gentlemen of the parishes cau be satisfied with a system, 
entailing upon them the enormous rates that they are now 
paying, or with that principle of seif-election,” &c. 

Mr. Thiselton, in a pamphlet before referred to (see page 7), 
so long back as 1812, viewed this evil in the same light. He 
says, “ a portion of the parish has been recently built upon, 
and some of the parishioners are rated even beyond their rack 
rent, while others are considerably below it.” 

Practical experience in my profession, has elicited numerous 
facts in corroboration of these sentiments ; and, during nearly 
twenty years, have I complained of this shameful abuse. At 
the first general meeting of the inhabitant householders, held 
at the Freemason's Tavern, June 23, 1828, I moved a reso- 




318 


Almost invariably too highly rated, there are 
discrepancies even in Bloomsbury which re¬ 
quire correction, it being no uncommon case 
for houses, situate in Great Coram Street, and 
other streets adjacent, exactly of the same 
description and size, being placed unequally 
in the collector’s books. In Bernard Street 
there are two gateway houses, exactly similar, 
the one is charged at £54, and the other at 
£36!! whilst there are two corner houses, num- 


lution expressive of the evil, which passed without a dissen¬ 
tient voice. Strange to say, it was suppressed afterwards at a 
small meeting of the committee: the selfish members of St. 
Giles’s parish were probably afraid of being placed on an 
equality with Bloomsbury, which, sooner or later, they must 
be, however repugnant to their views. 

That Mr. Rogers, who had been my friend during many 
years, entertaining similar sentiments, should consent to such 
a procedure without giving me notice, is most unaccountable. 
In justice to myself, I feel it a duty to here enter my protest 
against conduct as inconsistent as it was offensive. 

Having discharged my conscience so far, it is not my inten¬ 
tion to add one more word on the subject; whilst, with a dis¬ 
position averse to flattery, I hasten to bear testimony of my 
high sense of the integrity and active perseverance which that 
gentleman has displayed, in promoting the best interests of 
these parishes. To him we are indebted for the extinction of 
a vestry despotism, which, having no claims to the power 
assumed, had become odious by its conduct. Since he has 
taken the office of churchwarden, his vigilance, in connection 
with his worthy colleagues, in effecting reforms of abuses 
which had so long tainted the parochial ‘government, are far 
above any praise of mine; and he, and they, have only to con¬ 
tinue the good work, to lire for ever in the estimation of their 
fellow parishioners. 



319 


bers 42 and 43, in the same street, of the same 
depth and frontage, except that the former has 
'considerable premises attached, extending into 
Everett Street; 42 is assessed at £72, the other 
at *£90! Twenty years ago the inequality I 
complain of made a strong impression on my 
mind, and I made my way to the then vestry 
clerk, to remonstrate upon it. I was assured it 
was about to be regulated, and still the griev¬ 
ance exists in full force, as it ever will, if it is 
not resolutely resisted; and I presume to offer 
these few hints to the consideration of the oc¬ 
cupants of the many respectable parts of 
Bloomsbury, because I am aware they have not, 
by their interference, made themselves ac¬ 
quainted with the extent of the evil they endure, 
under a system founded on shameful partiality. 
By this system, one householder is made the 
victim (if I may be allowed the term) of his 
neighbour, instead of applying that equal pres¬ 
sure by which the burthen should be borne by 
all * > 


* If no other remedy can be applied, parliamentary inter¬ 
ference ought to be sought for; indeed, it seems extraordinary- 
that some general enactment has not been made to obviate 
an evil so extensively mischievous. It has recently been 
agitated at Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and other parts of 
the kingdom, and it was particularly recommended to the 
grave consideration of the legislature, by the cominittee^who 
sat on the poor laws, in 1816. 



320 


According to Parton, who had the best means 
of obtaining information, “the number and 
expenses of the poor pf this parish (St. Giles) 
at different periods, are only to be estimated by 
circumstances, except in occasional instances. 

£ s. d. 

Ia the year 1642, the amount received for 

church, parish, and poor, Was. 123 16 7 

The whole disbursement for poor was £55 13 3 

Ditto for church and parish ........ 41 6 3 96 19 6 

So that there remains in the accountant’s hands...*£26 17 I 

1642. There was disbursed for the poor..... 173 3 4 

1676. There was disbursed 
to them by the churchwardens 446 12 7 

Ditto ditto by the overseers...1320 0 0 J 766 12 7 

1677; The whole amount disbursed was. 2163 3 10 

1817. Its amount was no less than the enor¬ 
mous sum of..£39,116 9 0 


If any one will be at the trouble to cast up the 
probable results of each year’s receipt, founded 
on the assessments, he will find an average defi¬ 
ciency annually, amounting to upwards of 
£5,796 15s. 6d. arising from vacated houses and 
other causes, one of which is described thus em¬ 
phatically by Mr. Rogers. “The assessing the 
houses so high, whereby many of the respect¬ 
able inhabitants have been driven into the 
neighbouring parishes.” 

An audit committee has no claim to utility, if 
it sanctions accounts, and passes them without 










321 


minute examination, aided by the production 
of vouchers. Without professing to know any 
thing of its former correctness, on reverting to 
the abstract ending Lady-day, 1827—the very 


first lines are as follows :— 

£ s. d. 

<£ To balance stated Lady-day, 1826. 6089 19 9 

Deduct error, as adjusted in cash hook, page 291 1774 5 4 

Leaving real balance only.£4309 14 5 


A more extraordinary statement was, perhaps, 
never put in circulation by men invested with 
ample power to scrutinize at leisure accounts 
under their charge as auditors. It is in truth 
a facetious specimen of the united abilities of 
no less than twenty-four vestrymen, if we include 
the four churchwardens, rendered so by virtue 
of their office. Did they think it part of their 
duty to exercise carelessness in their vocation ? 
A schoolboy, with a competent knowledge of 
arithmetic, would have been inexcusable, had 
he made an error of less magnitude; and what 
excuse can they find for a mistake so flagrant ? 
On every view of the subject, great inattention 
is apparant, whatever palliation is offered in its 
justification. 

On turning to the cash book (page 291), I 
discovered that the auditors had admitted their 
incompetency, by calling in the aid of Mr. 

Y 






322 


Gallindo, the chancery accomptant, to correct 
their blunders, for which service he was paid 
from the parish funds, no less than £G0! I 
copied his adjusted statement as follows, but 
I own I do not comprehend it, nor did Mr. 
Robinson’s clerk, at the time I did so. 

<£ s. d. 

September 30, 1826. By excess of balance at 

Midsummer, 1823 ... 963 11 4 

By difference paid Perry, <£148 10s. 3d. By 

bankers...... 128 17 3 

By ditto paid Warburton ,£290 13s. 6d. Ditto 

by ditto.153 10 0 

1824. Deductions from alms- 

women, June .£174 12 0 

Ditto ditto, September . 87 6 0 

Ditto ditto, ditto . 87 6 0 

1824. Ditto, March. 44 13 0 

Ditto, ditto.. 174 12 0 668 9 0 


In banker’s hands...5542 12 9 

In churchwarden’s hands. 300 0 0 


In the governor of the Workhouse’s hands .... 40 0 0 

Apparent balance .£7656 13 1 £7697 0 4 

Real balance. 5882 12 9 

Error .£1774 5 4 

Such is the verbatim copy of their account¬ 
ant’s £60 report, which it should seem is entirely 
applicable to the late vestry clerk’s deficiencies, 
part of which are best understood under the 
almshouse and audit committees report.* 


* That report demonstrates that Earle had the collection of 
rents of that charity, and that from 1822 to 1826, he had not 


















323 


The mal-appropriation of this servant of the 
“ Select,” is supposed to have amounted in the 
whole to full £2,000, and we see the admitted 
sum is not far short of that amount; and as he 
filled the office only four years, the loss to the 
parish was little short of £500 per annum ! ! 

I found, on looking to another part of the 
cash book, the following entry, which ought to 
be recorded as another instance of misapplica¬ 
tion. 44 May 18, 1827, Mr. B. Walker, repay¬ 
ment of money surreptitiously obtained from 
him by the late vestry clerk, by order of the 
vestry, 17th instant, £8 0.” 

This appropriation of the poor’s funds, the 
property of the parish, is an utter dereliction of 
honest conduct, and cannot be too strongly 
reprobated ; it is the act of adding one fraud to 
another, there being no semblance of justice in 
their paying private debts with funds not their 
own, but under their charge. In a moral point 
of view, I contend this is as unjustifiable as the 
frauds which they impute to Earle.* * 


accounted for £700 2s. which is <£13113s. more than is set down 
in Mr. Gallindo’s statement I may add here, that Mr. Rogers 
and myself complained of this statement, as not evincing 
necessary clearness, when his report at large was refused 
us ! 

* lam most anxious not to misstate anything which comes under 
my notice, but, according to my view, the following result may be 
Y 2 



324 


We have now pointed out some of the mis¬ 
takes of an audit committee, specially instituted 
to detect errors, instead of creating them. 

It consisted of a number equal to any pur¬ 
pose for which it was formed, and it possessed 
the exclusive advantage of commanding all the 
necessary facilities, to enable them to fulfil 
their duties correctly. With all these opportu¬ 
nities, we find them blundering on from Mid¬ 
summer, 1823, to Lady-day 1826, when they 
suddenly found it necessary to retrace their 
steps, with the assistance of an eminent ac¬ 
countant. It was to have been expected, that 
henceforward caution would have guided them, 
and that no future errors would have marked 
their conduct.—No such thing, for in the very 
next abstract issued to Lady-day, 1828, a more 
palpable one than the one complained of was 
inserted. On referring to the preceding ab¬ 
stract to Lady-day, 1827, it will be seen that 
the balance is stated as follows :— 

drawn from the accountants statement, as applicable to the 


late vestry clerk. 

£ s. d. 

The defalcations admitted amount to .1774 6 4 

Omission in almswomens’ funds . 131 13 0 

Payment to Walker by vestry .. 80 0 0 


<£1985 18 4 


Query. Why have not Shelton’s school rents, amounting 
to £162, and unaccounted for, been mentioned in the statement ? 








Total expenditure 
Balance . 


325 


£ 8. d. 

,34395 13 2 
. 6090 14 9 


c£40486 7 11 


In the abstract of Lady-day, 1828, the above 
balance was brought forward in a reduced form, 


making it only . 3878 2 L 

Thereby sinking no less a sum than . 2212 12 8 


This extraordinary mistake might have pas¬ 
sed unnoticed, but for the spirit of inquiry 
prevalent at this juncture, it never being in¬ 
tended to render these abstracts subject to 
general notice. The anti-vestry association 
deemed it their duty to circulate an exposition 
of it, and the public notice consequent thereon, 
is presumed to have induced the audit com¬ 
mittee to recal the obnoxious document, and 
issue another, in which the original balance, 
viz. ot’6,090 14s. 9d. was restored !!! 

“ --Power usurp’d 

Is weakness when opposed ; conscious of wrong, 

’Tis pusillanimous and prone to flight.” 

After such specimens of incompetency, we 
may fairly pronounce the audit committee of 
the vestry essentially useless, and even worse 
than useless, because, in assuming to correct 
mistakes, it engenders them. 

We will now notice somewhat in detail the 
abstract of the seven years receipts and expen¬ 
diture : first premising, that the average number 
of paupers in the house during that period, will 
be found to amount to 888. 









326 


COMPARATIVE ACCOUNT 

FOR 

RELIEF OF 

FOR TUE 


ENDING LADY-DAY 1823, 1824, 


SUMMARY OF 



1822, 

Ending Lady-day 

1323, 

EndingLady-day 


1823. 

1824. 

In the House : 




£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

Food . 

5,817 0 5$ 

5,904 8 6$ 

Fuel. 

135 1 0 

1,639 9 2 

House Expenses. 

696 17 2 

605 6 2$ 

Clothing. 

3,074 1 3$ 

2,478 1 9 

Infirmary . 

937 12 4$ 

995 3 7$ 

In the House. 

10,560 12 3$ 

11,622 9 3^ 

Out of the House : 



In Weekly, Monthly, Infant Sc Casual 



Poor, See . 

17,082 1 10$ 

17,503 16 9 

Connected with the Maintenance • 



Salaries, Allowances, Law Expenses, 



&c. 

4,399 4 8 

5,713 9 4| 

Not connected with the Mainteyiance : 



County Rate, Poundage, Sc c . 

6,179 1 4 

2,903 19 11$ 

■ 

37,221 0 2 

37,743 15 4 

Rental of the Parishes— 

St. Giles in the Fields .,.7 

St. George Bloomsbury.5 

£. 

263,616 

1 

£. 

263,234 


N.B.—The Assessment is made on 




























327 


OF THE EXPENDITURE 

THE 

THE POOR 

TEARS 

1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, and 1820V 


EXPENDITURE. 


1824, 

End. Lady-day 

1825. 

1825, 

EndingLady-day 

1826. 

| 1826, 
EndingLad y-d aj 
1827. 

1827, 

• Ending Lady-da^ 

1828. 

1828, 

r Endg. Lady-day 
1829. 

£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

£• s. d. 

£. S. d. 

£. s. d. 

7,072 6 5 

6,428 0 2^ 

6,500 2 8$ 

7,000 8 2 

6,393 10 8 

881 3 0 

74S 14 2 

830 15 2 

894 18 2 

885 16 A 

709 1 8 

611 9 0 

403 15 

6 50 16 11 

638 4 8 

3,149 19 8 

2,301 13 

1,554 11 3| 

2,342 19 7 

1,515 11 1 

927 7 8 

829 15 0 

743 17 9jy 

727 9 3^ 

649 2 8 

42,739 18 5 

10,919 11 Ui 

10,033 2 1^ 

11,616 12 1§ 

10,082 5 6 

18.211 19 11 

15,406 9 4 

17,452 6 10 

19,354 11 2 

21,088 2 4| 

6,048 6 3 

5,159 13 5f 

3,358 4 10J 

5,095 14 5| 

4,922 18 7$ 

4,531 6 2 

3,950 4 3| 

3,551 19 4 

3,782 8 3 

3,755 3 2* 

41,551 10 » 

35,390 19 0 

34,395 13 2 

39,849 6 0 

39,848 9 8 

£. 

264,770 

.£. 

264,770 

£. 

770* 

£. 

240,822 

£. 

240,134 


Nine-tenths of the Gross Rental. 


* This is copied from the preceding Year, the Annual Return being lost. 

































% 


328 


Account of the Expenditure for the Years ending Lady-Day , 
1822, 1823, 1824, and 1825. 


In the House ; 

1822, 

Ending Lady-day 
1823. 

1823, 1 18 24, 

EndingLady-day EndingLady-day 

1824. | , 1825.' 

1825, 

EndingLady-day 

1826. 

Food : 






of. S. d. 

£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

Flour for Bread, 
Puddings, &.c.... 

2,027 19 0 

1,397 0 0 

2,275 10 0 

2,096 10 6 

Oatmeal, Barley, 
Peas, &c.. 

137 0 3 

205 16 3 

278 311 

313 5 0 

Meat . 

1,271 11 6 

1,247 2 3§ 

1.530 4 7 

1,430 15 9 

Butter . 

41 19 

113 12 4| 

66 11 6 

83 18 4 

Cheese . 

334 0 0 

760 6 6 

850 3 4 

706 19 1 

Milk . 

233 8 9 

201 9 9 

266 4 7 

-254 5 6 

Grocery. 

218 4 0 

273 11 3 

282 6 5 

248 12 0 

Table Boer . 

1,247 4 0 

1,149 12 0 

1,132 4 0 

847 4 0 

Vegetables . 

53 13 b\ 

246 7 9 

154 6 11 

222 19 8 

Salt 6c other Arti¬ 
cles of the nature 




of Food. . 

131 12 6 

172 16 24 

87 4 0 

65 9 6 

Allowance to Offi¬ 

cers in lieu of 
Tea, Sugar, &c. 
and of Pence to 
Poor Persons in 





lieu of Meat ... 

120 7 2f 

146 14 2 

149 7 2 

158 0 lOf 

Fuel : 





Coals. 

Candles. 

20 1 0 

1,407 11 9 

119 13 6 

708 1 0 

78 8 0 

602 5 0 

60 8 0 

Oil . 

115 0 0 

112 311 

94 14 0 

86 1 2 

House Expen- 
ces : 





Soap . 

117 0 0 

114 0 0 

181 0 0 

188 10 0 

Furniture. 

359 19 4f 

367 18 2 

422 10 8 

320 13 11 

Starch,Blue,Sand. 



Brooms, & other 
Incidents. 

119 17 9§ 

123 8 0| 

105 11 0 

102 5 1 

Clothing : 





Clothes. 

356 11 1 

227 16 10 

353 6 9 

223 11 9 

Woollen Drapery 

229 5 b\ 

85 12 9 

35 5 3 


Linen Drapery ... 

1,208 4 5§ 

1,107 18 5§ 

1,600 9 2 

939 9 11 

Hosiery & Haber- 




dashery. 

342 0 10 

323 13 3 

539 0 7 

432 6 3 

Shoes,Leather &.c 

863 15 2^ 

623 10 0 

552 4 2^ 

640 15 1| 
65 10 6 

Incidents. 

74 4 3 

109 10 b\ 

99 13 8§ 

Carried forward 

9,622 19 ll| 

10,627 5 7| 

11,812 10 9 

10,089 16 11| 




































329 


I 

1822, 

Ending Lady-day I 
18*23. 

1823, 

EndingLady-day ] 
1824. 

1824, 

Ending Lady-day 1 

1825. 

1825, 

Ending Lady-day 

1826. 


£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

£. S. d. 

Brought forward 

9,622 19 ll£ 

10,627 5 7$ 

11,812 10 9 

10,089 16 ll£ 

Infirmary Ex. 





FENCES: 





Wine and Spirits' 

213 16 10 

238 19 6 

154 8 0 

102 9 0 

Porter .! 

272 1 6 

• 289 16 10^ 

334 8 2 

328 6 7 

Drugs and Surgi-j 

351 3 



cal Instruments 

271 13 6 

251 18 8 

234 11 4 

Incidents.1. 

100 10 8 

194 13 9 

186 12 10 

163 18 1 

Out of the House - 





Weekly & Casual 

9,571 10 




Poor . 

8,382 6 9 

8,980 17 0 

7,585 19 9 

Poor Housekeep¬ 
ers’ Monthly 


Pensions . 

1,351 2 0 

1,400 1 O 

1,322 6 0 

1,242 19 0 

Poor Persons set¬ 
tled by Servitude 





&c . 

2,306 14 0 

2,287 2 6 

2,196 12 6 

1,725 15 6 

Allowance to Mo- 




thers of Bastards 
Infant Poor at 

941 2 6 

912 13 0 

903 13 8 

705 9 9 

Nurse in the 





Country . 

1,952 9 1 

2,114 4 1 

2,633 2 11 

2,074 0 11 

Lunatic Poor. 

59 3 7 

1,062 14 9 

799 12 4 

728 12 1 

Refractory Poor... 
Suspended Orders 
and Orders of 

318 10 2 

551 5 11| 

702 13 3 

614 6 1 

Sessions . 

Pensioners resi¬ 
ding in other Pa¬ 

86 6 6 

40 6 6 

28 6 9 

21 11 4 

rishes. 

334 0 8 

442 13 6 

395 2 6 

538 10 2 

Occasional Allow¬ 
ances to Poor 





Persons . 

151 11 9 

265 3 2^ 

207 16 8 

135 10 3 

Incidents . 

Connected with tht 

59 5 0 

? Maintenance : 

45 5 6 

41 16 4 

33 14 6 

Salaries . 

1,454 14 8 

1,633 10 6 

1,993 12 6 

1,698 19 0 

Wagesto Servants, 



Gratuities, &c... 

1,039 18 3| 930 18 7 

884 18 9 

830 11 0 

Law Expences ... 
Removal of Pau¬ 
pers, Warrants, 

100 1 7 

*1 

57 11 8 

244 17 9 

595 15 1 

6c c .. 

Funeral Expenses 

260 2 9 

388 10 10 

396 6 6 

334 2 9 

Coffins, &c. 

Rent, Taxes, and 

176 15 0 

1 

240 3 4 

295 1 10 

220 5 3i 

Insurance .. 

171 0 0 

205 14 0 

210 5 0 

292 10 6 

Buildings Repairs 
Materials for Re 
pairs done bj 

Paupers . 

Apprenticing Pool 

> 785 12 \\ 

r 

230 4 1) 

r 

^ 1,498 16 li 

\ 425 6 2 

l 1,163 17 10 

98 16 7 

476 11 0 

13 8 10 

Children . 

99 0 4 

. 81 15 10 

177 5 0 

165 13 2 

392 15 7 

367 13 11 

328 12 6 
368 17 6 

Incidents . 

Carried forwari 

1 32,041 18 10 

34,839 15 4; 

§ 37,000 4 7 

31,485 14 & 















































330 



1822, 

1823, 

EndingLady-day 

1824, 

1825, 


EndingLady-day 

Ending Lady-day 

Ending Lady-day 


1823. 

1824. 

1825. 

1826. 

Broughtforwardj 

£. s. d. 
32,041 18 10 

£■ s. d. 
34,839 15 

£. s. d. 
37,000 4 7 

£. s. d. 
31,483 14 8$ 


Not connected with the Maintenance: 


Collectors’ Poun¬ 
dage . 

County Rate*. 

Expenses of, and 
Allowances to 
Churchwardens 
and Overseers... 
Fire Engines and 
Rewards, &c. ... 
Bibles, Prayer 
Books,& School 
Books 

Dedu 

4,358 0 10 

220 11 6 

31 13 0 

159 4 4 

409 11 8 

cted from the 
1,512 19 2 

Included urn 

344 16 8 

amount of Re 
3,472 2 3 

der Incidents. 

288 7 6 

ceipts. 

2,752 11 4 

380 13 11 

Printing, Station¬ 
ery, Advertise¬ 
ments, &c. 

Incidents. 

Visitation Dinner 

547 2 0§ 

499 2 1 

446 0 0 

344 16 5 

467 9 0 

274 10 0§ 

30 0 0 

Total. 

37,221 0 2 

37,743 15 4 

41,551 10 9 

35,390 19 0 

Rate per Pound. 

s. d. 

S. d. 

s. d. 

». d. 

First Half-year ? 

1 9 

1 9 

2 O 

3 3 

Second Half-yr. j 

1 6 

2 3 

2 3 

2 0 


8 3 1 

4 0 

4 3 

4 3 


* It has been stated, on the authority of the Treasurer, that a Middlesex 
County Rate of one halfpenny in the pound, produces the enormous sum of 
£ to,ooo!! 






























331 


Account of the Expenditure for the Years ending Lady-day, 
1826 , 1827 , and 1828 . 


In the House : 


Food: 

Flour for Bread, Pud¬ 
dings, & c. 

Oatmeal, Barley, Peas, 

&c... 

Meat. 

Butter . 

Cheese . 

Milk ... 

Grocery .. 

Table Beer . 

Vegetables . 

Salt and other Articles 
of the nature of Food 
Allowance to Oflicers in 
lieu of Tea,Sugar, & c. 
and of Pence to Poor 
Persons in lieu of Meat 


Fuel: 


Coals.... 
Candles. 
Oil . 


House Expences: 


Soap . 

Furniture. 

Starch, Blue, Sand, 
Brooms, and other In¬ 
cidents . 


Clothing : 


Clothes . 

Woollen Drapery .. 
Linen Drapery .. .. 
Hosiery & Haberdashery 
Shoes, Leather, &c. 
Incidents. 


Carried forward. 


1826, 

EndingLady-day 

1827. 

1827, 

EndingLady-day 

1828. 

1828, 

Ending Lady-day 
1829. 

£. 

S. 

d 

£. 

s. 

d. 

£. 

s. 

d. 

1,777 

3 

6 

2,302 

9 

2 

2,286 

16 

6 

317 

3 

6 

265 

7 

6 

319 

17 

0 

1,754 

10 

9 

1,721 

2 

6 

1,566 

5 

6 

67 

7 

2 

66 

5 

4 

57 

10 

3 

671 

16 

8 

702 

10 

6 

671 

18 

9 

254 

7 

1 

342 

16 

0 

268 

10 

6 

230 

2 

9 

241 

19 

0 

188 

11 

0 

991 

4 

0 

908 

6 

6 

616 

19 

3 

252 

7 

4 

257 

15 

2 

205 

9 

0 

47 

11 

0 

61 

15 

7 

30 

7 

6 

136 

8 

U* 

130 

0 

11 

241 

5 

5 

607 

6 

0 

591 

4 

6 

571 

11 

8 

52 

7 

6 

77 

0 

6 

55 

15 

0 

171 

1 

8 

226 

13 

2 

258 

9 

9 

104 

0 

0 

227 

12 

10 

65 

14 

3 

245 

7 

3 

360 

8 

9 

553 

4 


54 

7 

11* 

62 

15 

4 

19 

5 

GO 

114 

11 

7 

420 

17 

6 



48 

3 

10 

36 

18 

6 

269 

15 

4 

427 

4 

11 

856 

3 

7§ 

628 

0 

2 

386 

18 

11 

259 

13 

2 I 

207 

9 

10 

506 

17 

7 

717 

0 

2 

364 

11 


70 

14 

H 

52 

6 

7 

45 

14 

2§ 

9,289 

4 

4* 

10,889 

2 

10 

9,433 

2 

10 



































332 


Brought forward 


Infirmary Expences 

Wine and Spirits . 

Porter .. 

Drugs and Surgical In¬ 
struments . 

Incidents. 


Out of the House : 

Weekly and Casual Poor 
Poor Housekeepers* 

Monthly Pensions. 

Poor Persons settled by 

Servitude, &c. 

Allowance to Mothers of 

Bastards . 

Infant Poor at Nurse in 

the Country. 

Lunatic Poor .... 

Refractory Poor. 

Suspended Orders and 

Orders of Session. 

Pensioners residing in 

other Parishes. 

Occasional Allowances to 

Poor Persons. 

Incidents. 


Connected with the 
Maintenance: 

Salaries. 

Wages to Servants, Gra¬ 
tuities, &c. 

Law Expences . 

Removal of Paupers, 

Warrants, &c. 

Funeral Expences, Cof- 

fins, &c. 

Rent, Taxes, and Insu¬ 
rance . 

Building and Repairs ... 
Materials for Repairs 

done by Paupers . 

Apprenticing Poor Chil¬ 
dren .. 

Incidents. 

Fees for Burials. 

Whitton Land. 

Carried forward. 


1826, 

EndingLady-day 

1S27. 

1827, 

Ending Lady-day 

1828. 

£. 

S. 

d 

£. 

S. 

d. 

0,289 

4 

H 

10,889 

2 

10 

98 

h 

0 

111 

14 

8 

263 

1 

n 

217 

17 

H 

281 

12 

i 

271 

12 

6 

100 

16 

i 

126 

4 

11 

9,417 

2 

9 

9,710 

15 

7 

1,106 

13 

6 

1,084 

12 

0 

1,381 

0 

0 

1,277 

0 

0 

490 

15 

4 

1,225 

15 

p 

2,311 

18 

0 

3,315 

17 

3 

878 

9 

6 

731 

0 

0 

932 

12 

2 

1,225 

9 

0 

55 

5 

0 

31 

16 

0 

681 

7 

6 

519 

10 

6 

162 

2 

3 

194 

2 

1 

35 

0 

10 

18 

18 

0 

1,465 

3 

6 

1,931 

13 

1 

628 

7 

0 

589 

3 

2 

59 

5 

3 

69 

8 

3 

373 

7 

7 

343 

7 

1 

154 

4 

5 

248 

15 

5 

180 

8 

3 

198 

17 

3 

287 

7 

0 

850 

10 

5 

2 

It 

8 

2 

1 

0 

93 

0 

0 

98 

6 

0 

114 

10 

2§ 

100 

5 

H 




559 

10 

4 




103 

17 

0 

30,843 

13 

10 

1 36,066 

17 

9 


1628, 

Ending Lady-day 
1820. 


£. S. d 
9,433 2 10 


100 10 0 
194 13 If 

149 8 ldf 

204 10 2 


10,267 8 1 

1,150 16 0 

1,563 19 6 

1,932 15 3 

3,056 8 2 

892 7 6 

1,287 11 0 

125 12 3 

482 18 5 

314 3 2$ 

14 3 0 


2,025 13 S 

713 16 0 
902 3 9 

297 15 3 

79 3 If 

231 6 0 

118 19 10 


113 6 0 

80 11 3| 

360 3 6 


36,693 6 5f 













































333 



1826, 

EndingLady-day 

1827. 

1827, 

1858, 

End'.ng Lady-day 
1829. 


EndingLady-day ] 
1828. 


£. s. d. 

£. s. d. 

£. S. d. 

Brought forward . 

Not connected with the 
Maintenance: 

30,843 13 10 

36,066 17 9 

36,093 6 b\ 

Collector’s Poundage ... 

_ 

311 13 11 

480 11 0 

County Rale .. 

2,485 9 5 

2,083 1 3 

2,226 13 0 

Expences of, and Allow¬ 


ances to Churchwar¬ 




dens ajid Overseers ... 
Fire Engines &Rewards, 

“ 

162 5 5 

182 13 11 

&c. 

288 5 0 

130 5 0 

260 0 6 

Bibles, Prayer Books, 




and School Books. 

— 

17 2 6 

0 19 0 

Printing, Stationery,Ad¬ 




vertisements, &c.*. 

480 12 11 

521 11 9 

450 6 9 

Incidents. 

208 6 9 

281 16 8 

122 4 2$ 

Alms Houses . 

9 5 3 

298 14 8 

31 14 10 

Visitation Dinner 

30 0 0 

50 0 0 



Perambulation 



Interest to Bankers. 


75 17 1 

-. 

Total . 

34,395 13 2 

39,849 6 0 

39,848 9 8 

Rate per Pound. 

First Half-Year ., .7 

Second Half-Year.5 

S. d. 

1 10 

1 10 

s. d. 

1 8 

1 10 

s. d. 

1 6 

1 10 


3 8 

3 6 

3 4 


* This item appears excessive, but some idea may be formed on 
the subject, when the following articles are said to have been con¬ 
sumed between the 1st of April and the 21st of October, 1829, viz. 
177 quires of foolscap, &c. 10 ditto ruled ditto, 30 ditto blotting 
paper, 21 ditto blue ditto, and 10 ditto brown—Total 248. Ink 25 
pints, aid pens 1125, &c. &c. A pattern of writing paper, equally 
good, was produced at 6s. 6d. per ream, and pens at 2s. per hundred 
less than the prices charged, but the overseers refused to change on 
Ibe ground of its being a mere matter of pence !! 

Mr. Mills affirms, that on these items a considerable sum might be 
saved. 
































334 


% 


Under the head of “In the House/’ the to¬ 
tal expense of supporting the inmate paupers 
amounts during seven years to £77,574 12s. 7Jd. 
Average per year £11,082, being somewhat more 
than o£l2 9s. 6d. per head, which seems to be 
a large sum for so great a body, with all the 
advantages of their being congregated together.* 

The expense of the monthly, casual, and 
infant poor, during the seven years, is £ 126,099 
8s. 3d. 

The average expense annually is £9,131 17s. 
for the support chiefly of Irish paupers. 

The following statement is founded on a 
published account emanating from the late ves¬ 
try, which does not quite agree with some 
calculations I had already made, but may be 
supposed more correct for the purpose intended. 


* This will be found to amount to about 4s. lOd. per week 
for each pauper, without adverting to salaries, wages, and 
other particulars. Whilst at St. James’s workhouse, the 
expense of each pauper is said to amount to no more than 
3s. 9d. per week, which I own seems incredible. 

Since writing the above, it has been ascertained that the 
Newington paupers are comfortably farmed at 4s. 6|d. per 
head, for which every thing is found them; and Mr. Mott, 
the master, proposes to take ours at 3s. 9d. each, on account 
of their number amounting to upwards of 800. The present 
cost is calculated at more than 6s. each, including every 
expense! A saving might thus be effected of «j£100 per week. 



# 

335 


a 

o 

‘is 

E 

& 

-O 

O 


03 



o 

o 

03 

o 

o 

CO 

— M 

o 

CD 

t> 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o> 

o 

o 




c* 

• 

• 

* 


c 

<13 

E 

ce 

03 

43 

03 

03 

c3 


e 

o 


03 

S-. 

cs 

43 


S= 

s 

o 

E 

C3 


C 

43 

> 

a 

03 


-c 

43 


43 

43 


S 

o 

_o 

c 3 


03 


C3 

43 


C 

43 

> 

43 

03 


43 

-a 


o 

43 




O 

H 


3 


O 

a 

43 


O 

*- g 
•§ < 


4) 

4E 

43 

Q 


o 

43 

fc!5 

C3 

i_ 

43 

> 

< 


U ■— 

.O rt 


03 

• ** 
-3 

43 ~ 

> 


43 

W rf 

S-S 


03 

c 


5 S? 


05 43 

-S*3 


40 

— 43 

43 -O . 
3 — 

- 43 CS 
«-» Q3 

03 —> ?►» 


-= d 

^ O 
73 § 

“2 ^ 

* Ctf 

03 

rt 


03 

*8 QJ 

-O -O 


— ••■ »»• ■ ■*. ■ -n • ■ V.- 

Assessed 
- Rental- 

£ 

237-255 

236911 

238293 

238532 

238990 

240822 

240143 


Money expended 
■within the 
year. 

£ s. d. 

37221 0 2 
37743 15 4 
41551 10 9 
35390 19 0 
84395 13 2 
39849 6 0 
39848 9 8 

266000 14 1 

| 

Money received 
within the 
year. 

■ 

£ s. d. 

1293 9 6 

37320 4 10 
34454 12 4 
43545 13 7 
42769 18 11 
36176 13 6 
39687 11 4 
37338 5 6 

272586 9 6 

Rate 

tn 

Pound 

-a CO © CO CO CO <0 ^ 

«; CO ^ rf C0 CO CO 

—“—- -- —-■» — -■■■- ■ ' 


C3 

. 

*> Oi 
*■© Ot 

5 00 

CS r-4 

-C . 
c 


CO O CD 00 Ci 
_ o» c* o» ot oi o* o* 

^00 CO 00 C< 00 00 CO 

' o 

>■» *j 

-a .tJ 

rt -o 


s ^ 

c 


a 

C2 


2 o> co -rt »o co t>» co 

fc, O' <N C* 01 Ol 0> Ol 

^ co co X' oo co :o co 









































336 


Flour.- —-This item must necessarily amount 
to a large annual sum, being for the support of 
a numerous class of paupers. The total for 
seven years is £14,093 8s. 8d. and the annual 
average more than £2,000. 

It appears that neither due care has been 
paid to the quality nor price of the corn, ground 
at the Workhouse, by the paupers. Mr. Mills 
says, “ on the 1st of June I was sworn in church¬ 
warden, and on the day preceding I went to the 
Workhouse and met the other three church¬ 
wardens, when we proceeded to examine the 
mills, which we found inferior to the old plan 
of the stones. We found much flour in the 
bran, and much grit in the flour. The baker 
confessed it was impossible for him or any 
other person to make a good loaf out of such 
flour. He also informed me that thirty sacks 
of bran had been sold, and afterwards re¬ 
turned, in consequence of Mr. Pinkerton, an 
overseer, having discovered, on calling on the 
purchaser, that the flour had not been properly 
extracted.” 

This imaginary bran has since, through pro¬ 
per attention, produced no less than three full 
sacks of flour, of which bread was made , equal , at 
least , to that commonly used by farmers” He 
farther remarked, that the food here purchased 
bore a good price, and ought to be of the best 
quality ; among which, he particularly noticed 


337 


the best Carolina rice, for which 35s. per cwt. 
was given, when good Patna rice could be 
obtained at half that sum. 

Table Beer. —The Table Beer item is on 
the face of the abstracted accounts a most 
shameful affair. In 1822 the amount is stated 
at £1,247 4s. Od. when* the number of pau¬ 
pers was 917; and on the following year 
£1,149 12s. Od., when the number was 993 ! 
In 1824 the sum was £1,132 4s. Od. when the 
paupers were 1,023, being 106 more than in 1822, 
when the sum was £115 in addition ; and farther 
palpable inconsistencies ar^e shown on inspection. 
The amount is much reduced in the year 1828, 
being only *£616 19s. 3d. paupers 804, cer¬ 
tainly a less number than usual, but the ex¬ 
pense is lessened, as may be seen on comparing 
the accounts, nearly one half. Is this one of 
the good results of the public opposition to the 
vestry ? 

By the “ Rules and Regulations for the ma¬ 
nagement of the Workhouse,” I perceive that 
each adult pauper is allowed eleven pints of 
beer weekly; and on the calculation of one- 
third of the paupers being so allowanced, there 
does not seem much objection to this last amount, 
after the supply necessary for servants is taken 
into consideration. It is manifest, however, that 
most of the previous charges were extravagant 
and wasteful, or such a reduction could not 
have been effected. 

z 


338 


The whole of the articles under the head of 
food, are well worthy the attention of the intel¬ 
ligent parishioner, and he will find, what appears 
to me enormous charges under other items. 

Coals. —In noticing, in detail, some of the 
itemsofexpenditureinthe abstracts, thearticleof 
Coals deserves our attention. The charge for 
this useful necessary, during the utmost limit of 
our knowledge, (seven years from 1822 to 1828, 
inclusive), is £4,487 19s. lid. < £ , 641 3s. in 
round numbers annually. This is equal, 
to the purchase of upwards of 300 chal¬ 
drons, they having been purchased some years 
at from 35s. to 38s. by contract. Be it observed, 
that they are stated under the head of “ In the 
house;” and one of the regulations of the Work- 
house, by order of the vestry, is, that “ no fires, 
but those for culinary and medical purposes, be 
allowed before the 1st of October, nor after the 
31st of March, except in very severe weather; 
and that not more than one peck of coals a day 
be allowed to each fire.”—This would be about 
thirty-eight bushels annually to each fire; and 
probably there are fifty fires so apportioned: 
but suppose we double them, 106 chal¬ 
drons would amply suffice, there remains there¬ 
fore about 200 chaldrons to account for; out 
of which we have to calculate the necessary con¬ 
sumption for cooking, baking, washing; fires 
for the governor, matron, apothecary, and 


339 


the board. I am not aware of any other medium 
of fair consumption, nor have I any wish to 
misstate anything willingly. 

Is it not true, that the vestry rooms, churches, 
school-houses, and alms-houses have been sup¬ 
plied from the same source, and under the 
designation of “ in the house ?” It would be well 
to inquire and learn if this be the fact; for, if it 
be so, it is nothing less than a surreptitious 
appropriation, and deserving of the severest 
censure. The present churchwardens will do 
well to look to this apparent abuse.* 

Furniture. —There is a considerable annual 
charge for furniture for the Workhouse, which 
amounts in seven years to <£2,0)30 2s. lOd. 
averaging yearly more than £31 5. In the 
absence of better information, it must seem to 
every one a most enormous sum for paupers, 
especially as it does not comprise blankets, 
or linen, for which there is also another extra¬ 
vagant item of account. 


* An examination of the cash book, on this item, will con¬ 
vince the candid inquirer that the interests of the parishes 
have not been regarded, or the sura of £642 2s. 3d. would 
not have been abstracted from the poor’s-rate, to pay three 
favoured parishioners for coals, at an expense of from 51s. to 
60s. per chaldron, when contracts were made at from 35s. to 
38s. Could we ascertain the whole particulars, the evil would 
probably exceed the calculation. This obloquy, be it remem¬ 
bered, attaches to the rulers of the parish, and not to the 
individuals alluded to. 

z 2 



340 


Linen Drapery is an enormous part of 
the Workhouse expenditure, the amount during 
seven years being no less than £6,767 10s. 8Jd. 
exclusive of Woollen Drapery and Hosiery. 
The consumption however is not commensurate, 
there being a heavy stock in hand, some of 
which has remained in the workhouse during 
the last six years. An inventory has been 
lately taken of it, and I was astonished on 
reading it to observe no less than seventy-two 
counterpanes, fit for the middle classes of so¬ 
ciety, but too expensive and ill adapted for 
paupers. The report is, that a tradesman in office 
a few years since, loaded the house with these 
goods, having little regard to the interest of 
the parishes. 

It has been stated by an overseer in office at 
the time, that a much higher price was given 
for blankets, &c. than they could be obtained 
at, so that the parish suffers in a double sense, 
first in being unnecessarily glutted, and next 
by paying an extravagant price for the goods. 

It will be seen that in 1823 and 1824 the 
items amount to £2,708 7s. 7|-d. and on my 
mentioning this to one connected with the ves¬ 
try, I was told, that it had been determined 
that the tradesman alluded to should never form 
one of that body. What a consolation for the 
parish! I contend, however, that the trades¬ 
man is less to blame than the vestry, who, as- 


341 


turning to themselves the guardianship of the 
parish purse, ought to have prevented such an 
abuse. 

Nothing but determined vigilance on the 
part of those who have parochial duties to per¬ 
form, can counteract the prevalence of fraud 
and peculation, and our present worthy church¬ 
wardens have evinced how much may be done 
by official attention to their duties. Mr. 
Churchwarden Mills keeps a journal, by which 
it will be seen that he often devotes to his offi¬ 
cial duties twelve and thirteen hours a day, 
and seldom less than nine. He has favoured 
me with a sight of this invaluable memento, 
and by his permission I quote the following 
entry:—“ 16th October, 1829. The matron 
informs me the house is clothed four times a 
year, but many of the paupers state they have 
not had an article given them for nine or 
twelve months. Some had four or five pairs 
of stockings, three of which 1 ordered to be 
taken away where the latter number was found. 
Plunder seems to prevail every where. I have 
insisted on the clothing of the dead paupers to be 
returned, but have not as yet had a satisfactory 
account, either from nurses, matron, or gover¬ 
nor, but I do purpose looking into that de¬ 
partment.”* 


* The following order, issued by the churchwardens and 
overseers, 21st October, 1829, is well calculated to prevent 



342 


Infirmary Expenses. The amount for 
wine and spirits under this head, averages 
nearly £150 a year, and for porter more than 
£271, making a total of upwards of £421! - 
During the several last years, it is observable, 
how much these amounts collectively are re¬ 
duced, and especially since 1825, proving de¬ 
monstratively that the parishes have not been 
fairly dealt with. 

£. s. d. 

From 1822 to 1825, three years inclusive, the 

wine and spirits are stated at... 607 4 4 

During the same periods the porter is stated at 896 6 5£* * 

.£1503 10 OJ 


During the four following years the wine 

and spirits amount to . 413 2 2 

Ditto ditto ditto the porter to 1004 8 6^ 

.£1417 10 8J 


peculation “ That in future no new article of clothing will 
be distributed to the inmates of this workhouse, until the old 
liave been examined, and found to be fairly worn and delivered 
up, when a new article will be given out in its place. 

* This sum is equal to 42,965 pots of porter, or 14,322 
annually, or 275 pots weekly and 25 over, or about 40 
pots per day. This is a tolerable allowance for sick people, 
and I should doubt whether half the quantity is afforded to 
the large number of patients in the Middlesex Hospital. I have 
examined the accounts of the Mary-la-bonne workhouse 
from 181.7 to 1826, as ordered to be printed by the 
House of Commons, and find no mention of porter for the sick. 
There is however a charge for wine and spirits, and taking 
the last year, (1826.) 











343 


There is one circumstance very observable, 
namely, that the two Jirst years' charge for wine 
and spirits is more in proportion than double the 
amount of every subsequent year , with the except 
tion of J824, and that is not equal to three 
fourths of the least of the two! If these articles 
were essential to the restoration and comfort of 
the sick, none of the friends of economy would 
suffer a murmur to escape them, but until this 
can be shown, every parishioner has a right to 
complain of the wasteful extravagance here 
exhibited. 

The Infirmary is a small detached building 
contiguous to the workhouse, instituted for the 
accommodation of sick paupers, and I under¬ 
stand the average is about fifty; and when it 
is considered how many of these, from the 
nature of their maladies, are debarred from the 
use of wine, spirits, and porter, suspicion 
cannot but attach to these enormous items. 

The amount when recapitulated during seven 
years, is as follows:— 


£. s. 

The amount of the former is.«... 293 6 

For the latter ...... 94 0 


£387 6 


In our parish the porter, wine, and spirits will be seen to 
amount collectively in another instance to of485 18s. 3d. and 
to £528 16s. 4Jd. annually. 







344 


£< s/ 

Porter... 1900 15 11 

Wines and spirits . 1020 6 6 

Drugs and surgical instruments....1812 0 5 

Incidents. 1077 6 6 


^£5810 9 4 

So that, with the strongest indications of im¬ 
position somewhere, this Infirmary is stated to 
cost the parish, without salaries, food, &c. £830 
a year. 

Salaries. —The items Salaries, Wages, 
and Gratuities, form another subject of inquiry, 
and until we are better informed, they savour 
rankly of jobbing with the parish funds. 

<£. s. d. 

Salaries for seven years .... 12,203 6 11 

Wages and gratuities. 5,617 12 9} 

Total...o£17,820 19 8J 

Being an average of <£2,545 17s. per annum!! 

Now, we know that the vestry clerk had £1050 
per year ; and we are aware that the governor, 
matron, and apothecary to the workhouse, and 
several others, have salaries and wages: but 
when it is considered how many of the paupers 
are put in requisition for general purposes, it 
seems quite inexplicable how such large sums 
can have been fairly required. 

The beadles and clerks of the paving, light¬ 
ing, and burial boards, it is well known, are 
remunerated from other funds, as also were the 













345 


watchmen and others. Even Parton, who has 
been deemed improvident, sets down for salaries 
and gratuities, for the year ending at Lady-day 
1814, no more than £1087 7s. Od.! as may 
be seen in a copy of his yearly manuscript ab¬ 
stract of that year, which I happen to possess. 
Does this heavy expense arise from the 
multiform duties, which formerly were concen¬ 
trated in Parton, diverging to various newly 
created officers ? If so, the experiment which 
was intended to produce greater economy has 
failed, and the sooner the old system under 
proper regulations is resorted to the better. 

On looking at the annual item of Wages and 
Gratuities, it is worth while to notice the dif¬ 
ference between the amount in 1822 and the 
subsequent years, and especially to compare 
that year with the year 1827. The former is 
£1,039 18s. 3|d.; the latter £589 3s. 2d. 
What can occasion such an amazing difference 
as this? 

Fees for Burials.* —This is an item of expen¬ 
diture which has been looked at in a very praise- 

« * The burial ground of St. Giles’s parish is situate near 
Pancras old church. It is under trustees appointed by the 
43rd George III. which empowered them to borrow a sum not 
exceeding *£10,000 for making, enclosing, &c. the said 
ground. About from two to three acres were purchased and 
appropriated here for the purpose about twenty-six years since, 
and it is conjectured (the trustees refused showing the books) 
that at least thrice that sum has been borrowed in defiance of 
the above act, and a fresh act was imposed in 1828.” 



346 


worthy manner by the present churchwardens. 
Since they came into office not one farthing has 
been allowed for the burial of the paupers; nor 
ought there, if it be true that the clergyman has a 
salary for that purpose, ground having been al¬ 
lotted them by donation, (seepage \22.) The 
audit committee has afforded us a meagre account 
of these fees, and they can onl y be noticed from the 
statement of 1827 and following year. In the 
former the sum is .£559 10s. 4d. and in the 
latter <£360 3s. 6d. total in the two years 
£919 13s. lOd. Why this item has been with¬ 
held in the former abstracts we are at a loss to 
conjecture, whether it merged in the Incidents 
or in what way it was disposed of, we know 
not, but the amount given of two years is 
amply sufficient to point out the abuse. Taking 
the average of the two years, no less a sum 
than £2940 has been abstracted from the parish 
funds during the seven; an occurrence which 
we trust will never be repeated. 

In the returns of St. Mary-la-bonne expen¬ 
diture presented to the House of Commons, I 
find the item, “ Burial of Paupers,” the 
amount of which during seven years to 182$ 
inclusive is £1,156 3s. lid. only. I have in 
vain sought for other accounts for coffins and 
fees, and therefore conclude that the whole is 
comprised under that head; certainly, by com¬ 
parison, very moderate, considering the extent 


347 


and population of this vast parish, and where 
we may infer there are more funerals of paupers 
than in any other in the metropolis. 

Building and Repairs, which are said to 
be “ connected with the maintenance,” well 
deserves the notice of the inhabitant house¬ 
holders, involving as they do an expense of no 
trifling magnitude. The amount in seven years, 
including £772 7s. 8^d. under the head of 
“ materials for repairs done by paupers,” is 
£5954 2s. O^d. being about £860 per annum. 
Now, it is plain that the workhouse and its 
offices only can be said to be connected with 
the maintenance, and we are at a loss to con¬ 
jecture how such a large sum could be ex¬ 
pended upon them. In my researches, how¬ 
ever, I found the following particulars of sums 
paid by order of vestry for repairs done to 
Bloomsbury Church, which throws some light 
on the subject, but by what figure of speech they 
can be said to be so connected , I am totally at a 
loss to learn. 

REPAIRS TO BLOOMSBURY CHURCH. 

J822. 

December 4tli. The joint vestry ordered payment of... 500 


—— 12th. Ditto ditto. 100 

1824. 

January 3rd. Ditto ditto.,...... 1050 

May 18th. Ditto ditto. 500 


These payments therefore in seventeen months amount to*£2150 








348 


Independent of other considerations, the 
money ought not to have been abstracted from 
any other fund than a church rate for the above 
purpose ; but this did not seem to suit the views 
of the vestry; the parishioners would have 
been excited with alarm, especially as they 
knew the legitimate plan for making such 
a rate would require the assembling of 
them together. Mr. Rogers, who under a 
judge’s order has had the exclusive privilege of 
inspecting the vestry minutes, gives the fol¬ 
lowing statement:— 

“ Both our churches are stone buildings, 
with fittings-up of oak, and are comparatively 
new erections, yet the repairs and fanciful al¬ 
terations are a source of never-ending expense to 
the parishes, and of profit to the Select and 
their connections; for example:— 

One vestryman paints St. Giles's church and 

charges..£477 18 4 

A second charges for glazing.112 17 0 

A third ditto for iron work . 174 4 6 

A fourth vestryman furnishes curtains. 285 12 9 

A fifth vestryman paints Blooms- .£1050 12 7 

bury church.«£595 0 3 

A sixth ditto puts in a new window 

to ditto .. 294 5 6 

A seventh ditto furnishes uphol¬ 
stery, &c... 174 6 3 

Others do smaller jobs amounting to 1497 9 9 

An eighth vestryman does glazing 

and charges .. 170 6 0 2731 7 9 


<£3782 0 4 












349 


Then they assemble in their secret conclave, 
audit their own accounts, and pay themselves 
by taking the above sum oat of the money raised 
under pretext of supporting the poor”* 


* The following is a statement of monies expended on 
Bloomsbury Church out of the poor’s rate from 1781 to 1823. 

£. s. d. 

1781. Sum taken was. 861 4 8 

1791. Ditto. 150 0 0 

1793. Ditto. 650 0 0 

1794. Ditto. 200 0 0 

1796. Ditto. 529 16 3 

1803. Ditto. 200 0 0 

1806-7. Ditto. 719 8 0 

1809. Ditto.,.. 1812 5 1 

1817. Ditto. 500 0 0 

1822. Ditto. 1650 0 0 

1823. Ditto. 500 0 0 


£1112 14 0 


Nearly equal to its cost, which was <£9793. 

Copy of some of the Items of 1822 and 1823.— 

£. s. d. 

Winsland, Painter .. 595 0 3 

Doyle and Son, Stained Glass . 294 5 6 

Ball and Son, Repairing Organ .. 145 2 0 

Caldecot, Uphostery . 174 6 3 

Southgate, Bricklayer . 128 0 7 

Akers, Plumber... 28 2 6 

Yardley, Glazier . 170 6 0 

Morrell, Plasterer . 67 17 2 

Brown and Son, Masons...... 151 4 4 

Jeakes, Ironmonger . 262 0 9 

Running, Surveyor .. 125 15 0 


.£2142 0 4 































350 


fr A churchwarden (in despite of the express 
provisions of an act of parliament) obtained 
the permission of the “ Select” to do some 
repairs that he pretended were necessary at 
the workhouse to the amount of £200. Upon 
this permission, he jobbed on until his charge 
was swelled to upwards of £2000, which was 
paid him in sums of two and three hundred 
pounds at a time, so as not to excite the attention 
of the more honourable part of the vestry who 
might happen to attend .” 

Incidents. —These are items of no trifling 
magnitude in the abstracts when collectively 
considered, and exceedingly useful where con¬ 
cealment is desired. This single comprehensive 
word is regularly introduced six times under 
different heads, which seem sufficiently enor¬ 
mous, and strained to the utmost, without an 
appendage of so mysterious an import. During 
the seven years these abstracts have been pub¬ 
lished, their amount is £5809 16s. 7fd. forming 
a yearly average of more than £829. But 
what a mass of these and other unintelligible 
matter will meet our inquiries, if the legacy of 
incomprehensible accounts left us by the former 
vestry clerks should be hereafter exposed to the 
public eye! Enough however has been exhi¬ 
bited to assure us of the utter incompetency 
and wanton extravagance of these guardians of 
the parish purse. 


351 


Whitton. —This single unconnected word 
appears in the abstract of 1826, with the sum 
of £103 17s. subjoined to it, and from its 
novel character, excited much curiosity. I 
therefore took the earliest opportunity afforded 
me (5th June, 1828), of referring to it in the ledger, 
and there discovered that in the year 1824, 
the “ Select” purchased a piece of land at the 
above place, with the intention of founding an 
establishment for the illegitimate parish chil¬ 
dren, which intention was afterwards abandoned, 
and a place was fitted-up in its stead at 
Heston. 

The following items of account will show 
that £103 17s. is but a small proportion of its 
expense. 


£. s. d. 

“February 7th, 1824. Paid Mr. Winsland pur- 
chase money paid to Mr. Foster for land at 

Whitton . 125 0 0 

Interest from 26th June, 236 days. 4 0 8 

Paid Archer, Solicitor, for conveying land and 

concluding sale ... 43 16 0 

Paid Mr. Turner, for couveying of ditto to 

trustees”... 43 5 0 


.£216 1 8 

It appears, by this plain statement, that the 
land cost the parish c£’125, whilst the jumble 
of conveying and re-conveying, amounted to 
more than two thirds of its value. These sums 
have been altogether mystified in the abstract, 









352 


being merged under the convenient head, “ In¬ 
cidents and the same remark equally applies 
to all the following items connected with it, 
except only the entry of £103 17s. which refers 
to plans and estimates for building the chil¬ 
dren’s asylum. 

“ From July, 1823, to April, 1824. 

£ s. d. 

“ First charge, made by Mr. Abraham, Archi¬ 
tect, of Keppel Street, for making out a plan and 
estimate, amounting to ^4,950, for building a 


house at Whitton, capable of accommodating 300 

infant poor. 61 17 0 

“ Second—A like charge for another plan and 

estimate (4,800), for 275 only. 24 0 *0 

u Third—A like ditto for another ditto ditto, for 

290 children . 19 10 0 

*' Fourth—A ditto for 250 ditto”. 17 10 0 


<£122 17 0 

Mr. Hardwick, an Architect, in Russell Square, 
was employed by the vestry to tax Mr. Abra¬ 


ham's bill, from which he deducted. 19 0 0 

Leaving the sum as in abstract ......<£103 17 0 


And any one would have thought the affair 
ended here, nor can it be divined why the remainder 
is withheld.—Mr. Abraham, subsequently pro¬ 
duced another bill, under the head of omissions. 


the amount of which was .. 12 18 9 

Mr. Hardwick's fee for taxing bill, as stated 

above. 5 5 0 

By which the deduction became only .. 0 16 3 

As per original charge.. .<£122 17 0 

















353 


All the sums exclusive of *£’103 17s. con¬ 
nected with this improvident purchase, have 
been mixed up with the very dubious, but 
useful item, “Incidents;” whereas, if they 
had been set forth in an intelligible form, this 
Whitton job would have been seen to amount 
to no less than <£’33S Is. 5d.!! Who, on 
reading the solitary word “Whitton, £103 17s.” 
could have fathomed such a wasteful transaction 
to the parish ?* 


* In the Refutation, the following singular defence is offered 
in favour of this job. “ There is nothing ambiguous or 
secreted concerning the land at Whitton ; it was purchased 
with the intention of erecting thereon buildings for an infant 
establishment, but prudent reflection determined the Vestry to 
prefer hiring the premises at Heston, and to avoid the expense 
of building. It is not true, that the land was ever the 
property of a vestryman”—“ and it is in the temporary 
conveyance only that he appears the possessor. The land is 
still the property of the parish, conveyed to trustees, and will 
return ils cost.” The reader will judge whether the trans¬ 
action could have been conducted more ambiguously , and it is 
well known that some of the vestrymen expressed much dis¬ 
approbation on the subject. But we are told, the land <( will 
return its cost!” Nothing can be more improbable, as the fol¬ 
lowing anecdote will show :— 

May 1, 1829. Mr. Mills, the new churchwarden, accom¬ 
panied by Mr. Newberry, went to view, at their own expense, 
the parish estate at Whitton. It was with some difficulty 
they found it; but at length, through the intervention of an old 
inhabitant, they arrived at the promised land. It is situate 
near the seat of Sir Benjamin HobWonse, and was an allotment 
of waste land under an act of enclosure, and was purchased 
by Mr. Fisher by public auction, who soon found he had a 
very hard bargain, which he was anxious to get rid of. He 
was relieved from his perplexity by our vestry purchasing it; 

A A 



354 


There are many expenses stated in the 
abstract, worthy the special notice of the intel¬ 
ligent parishioners; such as printing, stationery, 
advertisements, law expenses, &c. that appear 
enormous in my view, and especially after 
examining the St. Mary-la-bonne expenditure, 
before quoted (see page 342 ) 9 which gives a 
total on the three first items, during seven 
years (to 1826), of no more than £1,804 4s. 5|d. 
whilst the amount of ours is o£3,172 6s. 9d. 
within an equal period. 

My object has been to “ nothing extenuate, 
nor set down ought in malice,” but to bring the 
merits of our vestry government fairly before 
the public, that the parishioners may, by past 


pending which, a considerable portion of that body, accom¬ 
panied by the officers, went in carriages to view it, and report 
says, their conveyance alone came to about <£14. The natives 
were astonished, never having seen such a cavalcade before, 
and were at a loss to know what it was all about. Mr. Mills 
states, that, from his own knowledge of land, and from the in¬ 
formation he obtained, the utmost value of it, when let, would be 
about sixteen shillings per acre. Archdeacon Cambridge had 
let land contiguous to it at a pepper corn for two years, and 
after that term, at that rental. He describes it as a square 
plot of barren heath land, “ the worst I ever saw, and not 
above the value of <£15 per acre. It never has been levelled, 
filled up, or cleared of its furze, nor enclosed, although the 
purchaser is bound to pay the expense of making and keeping 
the road in repair; and to make and maintain the north-east 
fences, none of which have been done. I paced it, and found it 
contained two acres, three roods, and twenty-seven perches of 
land.” After this statement, is it credible that this ‘ f property 
of the parish will return its value?” 



355 


occurrences, so appreciate them, as to decide 
what can be done for their future advantage* 
They are threatened with another appeal to a 
court of justice, to reverse the verdict of a jury 
which has decided against them, and it is es¬ 
sentially their duty to guard against the impend¬ 
ing evil of a resumption, which experience 
has shown can only be fatal to their in¬ 
terests. Should a new trial be granted, and 
the vestry succeed in its object, a fresh enact¬ 
ment will be necessary for the future govern¬ 
ment of this extensive district, which must 
embrace a variety of measures calculated to 
obviate the abuses so much complained of. 
A vestry, chosen by the voice of the parishion¬ 
ers paying poor rates, is clearly the one best 
calculated for parochial usefulness, especially 
when selected from men of business and leisure. 
But, unless they are subject to re-election at 
stated periods, nothing effectually useful can be 
expected from them ; they will degenerate like 
their predecessors, and become reckless of the 
duties they undertake to perform. A vestry of 
the description required, should assemble the in¬ 
habitant householders upon all important occa¬ 
sions, instead of agitatingpublicmeasureswithout 
their concurrence.* If petitions to parliament, 

* It has long been the practice of the select of these parishes, 
to fill up their vacancies by appointing resident Lord Chancel¬ 
lors, Lord Chief Justices, Recorders, and other high legal 
A a 2 



356 


addresses to the king, or any other circum¬ 
stance which involved general interest became 
requisite, our former vestry, in its supreme 
wisdom, and in contempt of the ignorance of 
the parishioners, concocted all such matters in 
secrecy, after which their signatures might have 
the honour to be appended. Assuming to be 
every thing by a stretch of power, that body exer¬ 
cised it in wantonness, by placing legality at 
defiance in numerous instances. By the Act of 
10th of Anne, and 14th of George III. it was 
specially provided, that the money raised for 


characters, passing by men calculated to be efficiently useful. 

It is evident that these respectable individuals have other 
duties to perform, entirely precluding them from parochial 
affairs, however urgent. The present Judge Parke candidly 
acknowledged from the seat of justice, a short time since, 
that he was an unworthy member of St. Giles’s vestry, not 
having attended during many years. Judge Bayley, thinking 
it incompatible with his function, resigned; and Mr. Justice 
Holroyd, for the same reason, refused to be placed on the list. 

It is well known that these, and other eminent persons, are 
considered honorary vestrymen, and are seldom summoned, nor 
have they been aware how many irregularities have been done 
under the sanction of their names. It has been said, the best 
security a parish has, is to be found in the wealth and respec¬ 
tability of its residents, who form its vestry. Nothing is more 
true if these were regular and vigilant in their duties, but the ' 
contrary is almost invariably the fact. In these parishes, 
where the joint vestries have consisted of seventy-two, exclu¬ 
sive of the rectors and churchwardens, it has often been with 
difficulty that thirteen have been collected together to conduct 
the business. A few individuals, and those none of the wisest, 
have therefore usually directed, at their pleasure, the affairs 
of the joint parishes. 



357 


the support of the poor, should be used for no 
other purpose, yet this body has constantly 
taken from that fund whatever they pleased 
for the repair of the churches, the support of the 
alms-houses, and for various other purposes, 
without any sentiments of remorse. 

For all other parochial expenses than that of 
the poor, a distinct rate is necessary; but the 
“ select” have never thought it worth while to 
attend to the letter and spirit of acts of par¬ 
liament; it might have proved dangerous to 
their power to convene large assemblies, to 
make rates for specific purposes, and thus the 
illegal practice has continued, to the great 
detriment of the supine inhabitants.* 

It is sickening to review the conduct of a 
vestry so constituted, as it is to reflect on the 


* “ Although it is truly said the churches are of stone, the 
effects of time will render repairs necessary ; and the money 
for defraying such expenses has, for nearly a century, been 
taken out of the poorVrate, a practice not regular it is admit¬ 
ted, but, in effect, making no difference to the inhabitants, 
who would have to pay the same amount, whether charged 
in a separate rate, or in a consolidated one under the denomi¬ 
nation of that of the poor.” (See “ Refutation ” page 27.) 

This defence of an illegal practice is replete with fallacies. 
The wisdom of our ancestors, so often urged, no doubt con¬ 
templated how many frauds would arise by a want of adhe¬ 
rence to the distinctive rates. Will any one believe that 
nothing would have been saved to the parishes, had the law 
not been infringed ? and does the practice of nearly a century 
render the evil less odious ? 



358 


apathy so long prevalent in these parishes, 
where implicit submission has been carried to its 
extreme point; but for this we should not have 
to lament so many acts of delinquency. If the 
joint vestry had been composed of less discord¬ 
ant materials, their clerks for the time being 
would never have assumed such authority in 
the government of these parishes, nor would 
they have occupied their situations without 
giving securities commensurate to the trust 
reposed in them. 

The choice of churchwardens, fearlessly de¬ 
termined to attend to their duties, will render 
the year 1829 memorable in our parish annals, 
and is highly honourable to the patriotism of 
the inhabitant householders. This was the only 
privilege remaining to them ; the others were 
absorbed in the pride of vestry power, where 
regret has been audibly uttered, on the parish¬ 
ioners being legally invested with this solitary 
parochial right. 

The inhabitants will hereafter know how 
many real reforms have been effected by these 
officers of their choice, who, surrounded by 
peculation, have laboured unintermittingly to 
promote economy, and the best interests of 
their constituents. Many of their praise-wor¬ 
thy acts have come under my notice, but to 
enter minutely into them, would, at present, be 
premature, and I refrain. 


359 


There are several points admitted by the late 
vestry, which have entered into this discussion, 
in which all must concur. They are to be found 
in their “ Refutation.” In page 10 it is remarked, 
that “it needs only be put to the understanding 
of rational men, whether, if the whole parish 
were competent, business could be transacted by 
several thousand persons assembled together?’ 
Certainly not, and it will, therefore, be neces¬ 
sary to apply to parliament for the institution 
of an elective vestry, on a broad comprehensive 
basis ; but I would not have the thousands shut 
out from its deliberations on particular weight ]/ 
occasions * This is not, however, the affair of a 
moment, it cannot be effected until the meeting 
of that assembly; and as it is now announced 
that a bill is in progress, it is to be hoped that it 
will approximate, as nearly as possible, to the 
wishes of the mass of the inhabitants. They 
will, however, seduously watch over their own 
interests, cautiously avoiding the recurrence of 
evils they have had to conflict with. 

In page 25, under the head of assessments, 
we are told, “ if the rating of the parishes is 


* "If, in the application that may he made to parliament, a 
re-modelling of the constitution of the vestry is thought advisa¬ 
ble, those who form that body, so far from opposing, will aid the 
advancement of such improvements, as deliberation, caution, and 
wisdom may sanction. Should such improvements be thought to 
consist in introducing the elective principle, the vestry will feel 
no repugnance to its adoption.” (See “ Refutation ,” fyc. p. 50.) 



360 


complained of, as being grievously unequal, 
what reason can there be for supposing the vestry 
would object to the remedy, by a general as¬ 
sessment? According to the showing of the 
complaints, the vestrymen would be benefitted 
by the equalization; the majority of whom, 
as asserted in the complaining passages, are 
resident in those parts rated to such an exorbitant 
amount * They know that the rates are unequal, 
but are convinced that all great changes must 
be gradual to be beneficialand again ; “ the 
vestry is desirous of gradually introducing a new 
assessment.” 

Here is an admission of the necessity of a 
new assessment, but it must be gradual. What 
is implied by this portentous word, I am at a 
loss to conjecture. Mr. Thiselton, it has been 
shown, complained of this monstrous evil in 
1812; and I did so at an earlier period, when 


* 1 am inclined to view this representation as being too 
hastily made. It can be easily demonstrated, that at least 
twenty out of the thirty-six of the late St. Giles’s vestry, are 
considerably under-rated ; and it is probable nearly as many, 
by fair calculation, may be selected from those of Blooms¬ 
bury, no less than twenty-two of them being residents in the 
old part of the parish. It is well known that many of these, and 
others, formerly vestrymen, were, and are greatly benefited by 
this. Mr. Peter Ludgate’s house. No. 200, High Holborn, 
was never rated higher than ,£28 a year; whilst in Little 
Guildford Street, very inferior houses,Uo say nothing of situa¬ 
tion, are rated at «£33. Mr. Stable’s immense premises were 
assessed at only .£100; and, in respect to the living vestrymen, 
let the intelligent parishioners examine the rate-books and judge. 



361 


it was promised to be remedied. Twenty years 
have thus elapsed, without any alteration taking 
place, and still we are told it is to be gradually 
introduced! The truth is, it never will be intro¬ 
duced but by the efforts of the inhabitants, as 
was lately the case at Stratford-le-bow. On a 
moderate calculation, the elder parish has been 
paying somewhere about £8,000 a year less 
than her proportion, by which Bloomsbury 
suffers, not only in that instance, but also in 
respect to the king’s-taxes; and ought such a 
state of things to continue ? 

Assuming that St. Giles’s parish is assessed 
at two-fifths less than she ought to be, as com¬ 
pared with Bloomsbury (<*£45,360), the amount 
is annually, during the preceding seven years> 
at 3s. 9d. in the pound (that being the mean 
average), £8,437 10s. consequently the aggre¬ 
gate of that period amounts to £59,062 10s.!!! 

This enormous disparity may be multiplied 
to a considerable extent (being applicable to 
former periods), before we can calculate with 
any precision the magnitude of the. evil under 
which Bloomsbury has suffered, and yet its 
inhabitants have endured these exactions re¬ 
gardless of the injustice, or unaware of the 
consequences. 

“ He that is robb'd, not wanting what is stolen. 

Let him not know it, and lie's not robb'd at all.” 


362 


There is a uniform utility in parochial govern¬ 
ment, when directed to small communities; 
therefore, whenever parishes have arisen to 
considerable extent and population, they ought 
to undergo a division ; and this argument is 
especially applicable to our district. Blooms¬ 
bury ought to be entirely separated from the 
elder parish, as was evidently contemplated by 
the legislature in the Act of 3 George II. cap. 
19 (see Appendix), whatever objections may 
be offered against such a measure. The 
great obstacle to this, is the burthensome 
state of the poor, especially the Irish, who 
occupy a considerable portion of St. Giles’s 
parish, from which it has acquired the cant 
appellation of the “ Holy Land.”* Excluded 
from the aid of the opulent parish of Blooms- 


* 1816. Mr. Montague Burgoyne, in his evidence before a 
committee of the House of Commons, stated that he had taken 
much pains to ascertain the number of Irish residents in the 
two parishes; the result was, that in St. Giles's he found 
2,348, men, women, and children, and in Bloomsbury only 35 
ditto. Finegan gave evidence of there being 6,000 Irish in the 
neighbourhood of George Street, and 3,000 children. How 
are these accounts to be reconciled ? The former gentleman 
stated, that after a most patient inquiry, he ascertained that 
there were, in 1815, 6,876 Irish adults in the metropolis, and 
7,288 children, making a total of 14,164. 

In one Court in Mary-la-bonne, containing only twenty-four 
very small houses, he states he found 700 of these poor peo¬ 
ple, in a situation likely to occasion contagion. There were 
but few of them who had not themselves begged, or employed 
some in their families to do so. 



363 


bury, the burthen would be extreme, and she 
has reason to deprecate such an event. 

I would, nevertheless, have each parish, ac¬ 
cording to the implied intention of parliament, 
placed in an independent state, each conducting 
its separate affairs; and am persuaded, that an 
arrangement might be made combining mutual 
advantage. 

If it be necessary to attach a portion of St. 
Giles’s parish to Bloomsbury, to make the 
burthens equivalent; or if an annual sum, in 
aid of the elder parish be required, let such a 
measure be resorted to, conformable to the 
provision of the Act of 43 of Elizabeth; in my 
humble opinion, something of this nature would 
operate to the benefit of the whole district. No 
argument can be drawn against this from the 
two large parishes of Mary-la-bonne and St. 
Pan eras; they are confessedly ill managed, as 
all overgrown bodies ever must be. 

How weak and futile are the prejudices of 
man! the very naming of reforms, calculated to 
promote the best influence on society, have 
been always objected to, if they interfere ever 
so remotely on established institutions. The 
improvements in the arts, and the refinements 
of philosophy have been opposed, because 
mankind have wanted leisure or fortitude to 
scrutinize the object of their veneration, and 
the prejudices by which they have been blinded. 


364 


The proposition for the severing of these pa¬ 
rishes, on the same principle, will, I am assured, 
be received with similar sentiments, and it is 
only by being accustomed to the sound, and 
giving scope to reflection, that the calmness of 
inquiry can be expected; and 1 am sanguine 
enough to believe, that at no distant period, 
the hints thus thrown out will be acted upon. 

But whatever may be the event in this 
respect, the notice just issued of an intended 
application to parliament for a new parochial 
enactment, is a signal for due exertion to coun¬ 
teract any attempt to place us again on the 
old system. That the affairs of populous 
parishes must be administered by a few, in 
the nature of a committee, must be admitted, 
but whatever name is given it, it ought no 
longer to be a self-propagating body, irrespon¬ 
sibly constructed. On the contrary, it should 
be chosen at intervals, either wholly or par¬ 
tially, and its proceedings should be subject to 
the revision of the inhabitant householders. 

As this new measure originates from a vestry 
odious to the parishioners, it becomes the more 
imperative to view it with jealousy; let them 
therefore, be on the alert, always recollecting, 
that if they act with the tameness of sheep^ 
they may expect the wolves to devour them. 


365 


CHAPTER X. 


Biographical Sketches of former Residents in these 
Parishes — Dr . Borde—George Chapman — 
Duchess Dudley—The Bedford , Montague , 
and Southampton Families — Mrs. Thomas — 
and the Revolution of 1688, <$c. $c. 

Doctor Andrew Borde —Grainger says, 
“ was physician to Henry VIII. and an admirde 
wit in his reign.” He was the author of “ The 
Breviary of Health,” “Tales of the Madmen of 
Gotham,” and of the work entitled “ The Intro¬ 
duction of Knowledge, the whych doth teach a 
man to speak al maner of languages, and to 
know the usage and fashion of al maner of 
countries : Dedycated to the right honourable 
and gracious Lady Mary, daughter of King 
Henry VIII.” Black letter, imprinted by 
William Copeland, without date. 

The name of merry-andrew, since so familiar, 
is said to be first given to Doctor Borde, on 
account of his pleasantries. In the latter part 
of his life he grew serious, and took upon him 
the order of a Carthusian Monk, in the Charter 
House, at London. 

He lived on the site of Dudley Court (see 
page 25), but it does not appear how long he 
was a parishioner of St. Giles. 

George Chapman, one of the earliest English 
dramatic poets, and the first translator of the 


366 


whole of the works of Horace, was probably an 
inhabitant of this parish, he having a Grecian 
monument erected to his memory here, in St. 
Giles’s church-yard, classically constructed by 
his friend Inigo Jones. The stone stands above 
ground, against the wall, much defaced. He 
died in 1634, aged 77# 

Duchess Dudley, or Duddely —So cele¬ 
brated for her charities, was a parishioner more 
than half a century. She was third daughter of 
Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, Warwickshire, 
Baronet. Her mother was Catherine, daughter 
of Sir John Spencer, of Wormleighton, Knight, 
and great grandfather to Earl Sunderland. The 
aforesaid Sir Thomas Leigh had by the said 
Catherine, John Leigh, Knight, who was the 
father of the Lord Leigh, Baron of Stonely. 
Alice married Sir Robert Dudley, Knight, in 
1620, son to Robert Earl of Leicester, and for 
his excellent merits, created a Duke by Ferdi¬ 
nand II. late Emperor of Germany. She was, by 
letters patent, dated May 20, 1635, by Charles 
I. advanced to the title of a Duchess She had 
five daughters, one only of which survived 
her, the widow of Sir Richard Levison, Knight, 
who was the picture of her mother in piety, and 
goodness. The Duchess was born at Stonely, 
where there is a catalogue of her charities, to 
the reparation of the church, rebuilding it, and 
the ornaments of the altar. There her body 
lies entombed ; and besides her charities to her 
native town, many others are recorded of her, 
and of her augmentation of poor vicarages. She 
purchased a fair house and garden for the in¬ 
cumbent of St. Giles, where her benefactions 
were neither few nor small. 


367 


Doctor Boreman, in Ms funeral Sermon, 
speaking of her, says, “ She was a magazine of 
experience—her vast memory, which was strong 
and vigorous to admiration, was the store¬ 
house and treasury of observation and know¬ 
ledge of occurrences for many years; so that I 
have often said that she was a living chronicle, 
bound up with the thread of a long spun age. 
And in divers accidents, and things relating to 
our parish, I have often appealed to her stu¬ 
pendous memory, as to an ancient record. 
An enlargement of her estate she never desired 
by the addition of a jointure, but moving in the 
sphere of her own fortune, and contenting her¬ 
self with the portion God had given her, she 
clave only to him. In short, I would say to any 
desirous to attain some degree of perfection, 
vacle ad sancti Egidtj oppidum et disie Ducissam 
Dudley am —“ Come to St. Giles, and inquire 
the character of Lady Dudley.” 

She is mentioned further in the Biographia 
Britannica, 1812, which in the preamble states, 
“That in the early part of James I. a suit com¬ 
menced against her husband, Sir Robert Dud¬ 
ley, Knight, and others, for pretending himself 
to be heir to the houses and lands of the Earldom 
of Warwick and Leicester, and that divers wit¬ 
nesses were examined in support of such claim. 
Whereupon by full testimony upon oath, partly 
made by the Lady Douglas, and partly by other 
persons of quality and credit, who were present 
at the marriage by a lawful minister; and that 
the said Sir Robert and his mother were owned 
by the Earl, as his lawful wife and son, as by 
many of such depositions appear. But a special 
order being made for sealing up the said deposi¬ 
tions, did cause the said Sir Robert to leave the 


368 


kingdom; whereof his adversaries taking advant¬ 
age, procured a privy seal to be sent requiring his 
return, which he not obeying, because his 
honours and lands were denied, all his lands 
were seized to the king’s use.” 

Sir Robert signalized himself in an expedition 
he fitted out to the River Oroonoco, in which he 
captured and destroyed several Spanish ships. 
In 1596 he was at the taking of Cadiz, and was 
rewarded with the honour of knighthood. In 
1605 he had adopted legal proceedings to esta¬ 
blish his legitimacy, but his father’s widow 
defeated the attempt, on which he retired to 
Florence, thereby deserting his country and his 
amiable wife and five daughters. At Florence 
he seduced and carried off the daughter of Sir 
Robert Southwell, and was afterwards outlawed, 
and his estates were forfeited to the crown. 
Subsequently, he assumed the titles of Earl of 
Warwick and Duke of Northumberland. He 
devised plans for draining the neighbourhood of 
Pisa, and improving the port of Leghorn ; and 
compiled a work entitled Arcano del Mare. 
He became chamberlain to the Grand Duchess, 
and was created a Duke of the Holy Roman 
Empire. He died at his seat, near Florence, 
in 1639, bearing the character of his family, 
for being clever and well informed, but un¬ 
principled. 

King Charles I. came into the possession of 
the estates, which had been purchased for a 
small sum by his brother, Prince Henry. They 
consisted of Kennilworth Castle, with its ex¬ 
tensive chaces, &c.; but learning afterwards of 
the great injustice done her husband and her¬ 
self and family by such alienation, and in con¬ 
sideration of the services of Sir R. Levison, and 


369 


Robert Holborn, Esq. (who married two of her 
daughters), the King granted to Lady Alice 
the title of Duchess of Dudley for her life, and 
' to her daughters, the places, titles, and prece¬ 
dences of duke’s daughters, for their lives, con¬ 
sidering himself obliged to do much more for 
them, if it were in his power, in those unhappy 
times of distraction, 

She died, possessed of the vast fortune of her 
husband’s father, the Earl of Leicester, at her 
house, near the church, January 22, 1669, 

aged 90. Stow has given a minute account of 
her donations, under the article of St. Giles’s 
parish. 

Lord Herbert of Cherbury, in the county 
of Salop, eminent for his character and writ¬ 
ings, resided in Great Queen Street, in a house 
still remaining on its south side, a few doors east 
of Great Wild Street. His chief work was 
“ De Veritate prout distinguitur Revelatione,” 
which has been treated with much respect, 
although it questions the utility of Revelation. 
It has been considered a book of much learn¬ 
ing and argument, and has been answered by 
Gassendi. An incident which occurred, as he 
states, determined him to publish this work; 
and it may be mentioned as a remarkable in¬ 
stance of the power of imagination over an 
enthusiastic mind. He was in his chamber, 
doubtful as to the propriety of the publication, 
on a summer’s day; and, as the sun shone clear, 
he took his book and knelt devoutly on his 
knees, and besought the Lord to satisfy him 
whether he should give it to the world or sup¬ 
press it. “ I had no sooner spoke,” he says, 
“ these words, but a loud, though yet gentle noise 
came from the Heavens (for it was like nothing 


B B 


370 


on earth), which did so comfort and cheer me, 
that I took my petition as granted, and that I 
had the sign demanded.” He makes the most 
solemn assertions in his life, written by himself, 
of the truth of this, and there is no reason to 
doubt his belief of it. He is said to have been 
the earliest English sceptical writer, and the 
work in question has been reported an extraor¬ 
dinary one, considering the time in which it 
Was written; but one cannot but notice the 
inconsistency of the test which ushered it into 
the world. It was truly a surprising instance 
of vanity and self delusion, in one whose chief 
argument is against revelation, founded on the 
improbability that Heaven would communicate 
its will to a part of the world and not to the 
whole. He wrote also a “ Life and Reign of 
Henry VIII.” which has been considered an 
apology of that wicked Prince, rather than a 
fair representation. He joined the parliament 
in the turbulent times of Charles I. but after¬ 
wards quitted it, suffering greatly in his fortune 
in consequence. He was reckoned a man of 
great talent and bravery, and was open and 
generous in his disposition. He died at his 
house in Great Queen Street, in 1648, aged 77 
years, and was interred in his parish church of 
St. Giles, where his epitaph particularised him 
as the author of “ D’Veritate.” His entertain¬ 
ing memoirs, written by himself, remained in 
manuscript until first printed by Lord Orford, 
at Strawberry Hill, in 1764. 

We may here notice that Great Queen Street 
has been celebrated for men of high eminence 
and abilities. Here Sir Godfrey Kneller lived 
and practised his art, having among his numer¬ 
ous portraits painted those of no less than eight 


371 


monarchs, who sat to him. Many of the beauti¬ 
ful women of his day still survive in his colours. 
He died October 27, 1723; leaving considera¬ 
ble wealth, accumulated by his successful in¬ 
dustry. 

Doctors Mead and Radcliffe were also 
parishioners, and resided in the same street, at 
the same period as Sir Godfrey Kneller. The 
medical works of the former are still in es¬ 
timation ; and the library of the latter, his 
munificent gift to the University of Oxford, is a 
noble monument to his fame, The former died 
in 1754—the latter in 1714. 

Lord Lisle.— We have before mentioned 
the grant, &c. made to him; (see page 21,) 
and that he resided in part of the Hospital 
buildings. He was the eldest son of Edmund 
Dudley, who was executed with Empson in 
1509 : they were the rapacious agents of Henry 
VII. His mother was Elizabeth, daughter of 
Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, who, five years 
after her mother’s death, married Arthur 
Plantagenet, natural son of Edward IV. by 
Lady Elizabeth Lucy ; and which Arthur Plan- 
tagenet was afterwards, in her right, created 
Viscount Lisle. 

John Dudley was born 1502 ; and was on the 
reversal of his father’s attainder, created Vis¬ 
count Lisle, subsequently made Lord High 
Admiral, and was left one of the sixteen ex¬ 
ecutors of Henry the VIIl.’s will. Anno 1547, 
he was created Earl of Warwick, and had the 
office conferred on him of great Chamberlain of 
England, he was next made a Knight of the 
Garter; and in 1551, to complete his honours, 
was advanced to the dignity of Earl Marshal 
of England, and created Duke of Northumber¬ 
land. 


B B 2 


372 


On the death of the Duke of Somerset, uncle 
of Edward VI. who fell through his intrigues, 
he became head of the council; and vested 
with this authority, had the address to prevail 
with the youthful Edward, to violate the order 
of succession, in order to set the crown on the 
head of his daughter-in-law, the Lady Jane 
Grey, who, after the king’s death, was ac¬ 
cordingly proclaimed queen. The accession 
of Mary, and the events which followed are 
well known. Arrested for the part he had 
taken in this transaction, he was, with his son 
the young Lord Dudley, convicted of high 
treason, and on the 22nd of August, 1554, fell 
like his father Edmund Dudley, on the scaffold, 
in the 52nd year of his age, unbeloved and 
unpitied. 

Sir Roger L’Estrange, who was much 
celebrated as a political writer during the 
stormy reign of the Stuarts, as also for his gross 
inconsistency, is interred in St. Giles’s church, 
and his monument was said to be the most re¬ 
markable one in it. He died at the advanced 
age of 88, in 1704. 

Andrew Marvel.-— The inflexible and 
disinterested Andrew Marvel, the early Latin 
secretary to the immortal Milton, lies also 
here. He was a fine example of incorruptible 
patriotism; of whom it is recorded, that in the 
hour of need he refuser £1000 offered him by 
Charles II. although his necessities required 
immediately afterwards the loan of a guinea 
from a friend. Kingston-upon-Hull, his native 
place, was the borough he represented, and his 
constituents, highly sensible of his integrity, 
buried him at their expense. They also voted 
a sum of money to erect a monument to his 


373 


memory, with a laudatory inscription, which, 
although devoid of party allusion, neither the 
one nor the other was admitted by a rector* 
belonging to a class of zealots, who occasionally 
impeach the intellectual character of the church 
of England, 

As a curiosity, I here copy the intended 
epitaph, which was afterwards inserted on a 
monument at Kingston-upon-Hull by his con¬ 
stituents. They have, however, taken a liberty 
with the fact of his remains lying there. 

EPITAPH ON ANDREW MARVEL, ESQ 1 . 

Near this place 

Lyeth the Body of Andrew Marvel, Esq. 

A Man so endowed by Nature, 

So improved by Education, Study, and Travel, 

So consummated by Experience, 

That, joining the most peculiar graces of Wit 
And Learning,. 

With a singular Penetration and strength of Judgment, 
And exercising all these 
In the whole course of his life 

With unalterable steadiness to the ways of Virtue, 

He became the ornament 
And example of the age. 

Beloved by good men, feared by bad^ 

Admired by all, 

,Though imitated, alas L 
By few. 

And scarce paralleled by any : 

But a Tombstone can neither contain his character,. 

Nor is a Marble necessary to transmit it to posterity. 

It is engraved on the minds of this generation. 

And will be legible in his inimitable 
Writings i 
Nevertheless, 

He having served near twenty years 


* Scott seems to have been the rector alluded to. 




374 


Successively in Parliament, 

And that with such 

Wisdom, Integrity, Dexterity, and Courage 
As became a true Patriot: 

The Town of Kingston-upon-Hull, 

From whence he was constantly deputed to that assembly. 
Lamenting in his death the public loss, 

Have erected 

This monument of grief and gratitude, 1688. 

He died in the 58th year of his age. 

On the 16th day of August, 1678. 

Dukes of Montague. —Ralph, the first 
Duke of Montague, the founder and first in¬ 
habitant of Montague House, was the son of 
Edward Lord Montague. In 1688, he became 
a peer by the death of his father, having pre¬ 
viously married Elizabeth, daughter and co¬ 
heiress of the Lord Treasurer Southampton, 
and widow of Joceline Percy, the eleventh and 
last Earl of Northumberland, by which he re¬ 
ceived a great accession to his fortune. In 
1690, he was a widower, and solicited and 
obtained the hand of the rich widow of the 
second Duke of Albermarle, usually termed the 
mad Duchess.* She was the eldest daughter 
and co-heiress of Henry, the second Duke of 


* Horace Walpole mentions, that Richard Lord Ross, a 
man of wit, humour, and frolic, who affected to imitate the 
Earl of Rochester, and had unsuccessfully pursued the lady, 
addressed the following lines to Lord Montague on the match :— 
“ Insulting rival! never boast 
Thy conquest lately won ; 

No wonder that her heart was lost,— 

Her senses first were gone. 

From one that’s under Bedlam’s laws. 

What glory can be had ? 

For love of thee was not the cause,— 

It proves that she was madr” 



375 


Newcastle, whose father had expended in the 
cause of Charles I. including his loss from se¬ 
questrations, the sum of £941,308. She mar 
ried, anno 1669, Christopher Monk, second 
Duke of Albermarle, when he was only sixteen 
years, of age. Her inordinate pride acting on 
a wayward and peevish temper, made the Duke, 
according to Granger, frequently think a bottle 
a much more desirable companion than herself, 
and also induced other irregularities, for which 
the dissipated manners of the court furnished 
but too gross an example.* After his decease 
in 1688, at Jamaica, the Duchess, whose vast 
fortune inherited from her ancestors had inflated 
with vanity to that degree, as to produce men¬ 
tal aberration, resolved never to give her hand 
to any but a sovereign prince. Her great pro¬ 
perty attracted suitors ; but, true to her resolu¬ 
tion, she rejected them all, till the Duke of 
Montague achieved the conquest by courting 
her as Emperor of China . He also married 
her in that character, but afterwards played 
the tyrant, and kept her in such strict confine¬ 
ment, that her relations compelled him to pro¬ 
duce her in open court, to prove that she was 
alive. He was created by William III. Mar¬ 
quis, and by Queen Anne, Duke of Montague. 
The Duchess survived him nearly thirty years, 
and at last “ died of sheer old age” at New¬ 
castle House, Clerkenwell, 28th August, 1734, 


* Ellis, in his Correspondence, says I reckon very 
speedily upon two vacant Dukedoms, Buckingham and Al¬ 
bermarle ; the first worn out to a thread by-, the other 

burnt to a coal by hot liquor.” This martyr was the son of 
Monk, Duke of Albermarle, by his wife Anne Clarges, the 
farrier’s daughter; who sold oysters in a court near the Strand. 



376 


aged 96 years. Her marriage is said to have 
given occasion to Cibber to introduce a scene 
in his play of “ The Sick Lady Cured.” Pen¬ 
nant says, she was kept on the ground-floor 
apartments of Montague House during his 
Grace’s life, and was served on the knee to the 
day of her death. Of this first Duke of Mon¬ 
tague we shall have more to add in the Life of 
Mrs. Thomas, (see p. 390 .) 

We shall here add, that the second Duke, 
John; son of Ralph, continued a parishioner 
during several years, and was, with his relative 
John Duke of Bedford, appointed a vestryman 
of St. George Bloomsbury in 1731. In 1733 
he removed with his Duchess from Montague 
House, of which he only occupied one wing, 
to his residence at Whitehall. 

Richard Pendrell. —At the time of 
Charles II.’s escape and concealment in the 
oak, the Pendrells, who resided in Staffordshire, 
had the merit, by their fidelity and prudence, 
of being instrumental in effecting his deli¬ 
verance. It is supposed that Richard, after 
the restoration, followed the king to town, and 
then settled in this parish, as being near the 
court. Certain it is, that Pendrells name 
occurs in 1702 as overseer, which leads to the 
conclusion that Richard’s descendants con¬ 
tinued inhabitants here for many years. The 
grand-daughter of this Richard was lately living 
in the neighbourhood of Covent Garden, and 
is said to have enjoyed a small pension, part of 
the one granted to her ancestor. Richard 
Pendrell died in 1671, and had a monument 
erected to his memory on the south-east side 
of the former church. The raising of the church¬ 
yard, subsequently, had so far buried the mon- 


377 


ument as to rentier it necessary to form a new 
one to preserve the memory of this celebrated 
man. The black marble slab of the old tomb, 
at present, forms the base of the new one. 
Strype has recorded the inscription, which con¬ 
tains less poetry than sentiment:— 

“ Here lies 

RICHARD PENDRELL, 

Preserver and Conductor of his sacred Majesty, King Charles 
the Second, of Great Britain, 

After his Escape from Worcester fight, 1650, 

Who died February 8th, 1671. 

Hold passenger, here’s shrouded in this hearse, 
Unparalled Pendrell thro’ the universe ! 

Like when the eastern star from heaven gave light 
To three lost kings; so he in such dark night. 

To Britain’s monarch, lost by adverse war. 

On earth appeared a second eastern star; 

A pole, a stem, in her rebellion’s main, 

A pilot to her royal sovereign came: 

Now to triumph in heaven’s eternal sphere, 

He is advanced for his just steerage here, 

Whilst Albion’s chronicles with matchless fame. 

Embalm the story of great Pendreil’s name.” 

The Annual Register of 1827 has the follow¬ 
ing announcement:—“Died, December 15th, 
1827, at Eastborne, aged 70, Mr. John Pen¬ 
drell, the representative of the preserver of 
Charles II. His son, who formerly kept the 
Royal Oak at Lewes, is now clerk at the 
Gloucester Hotel, Brighton.” 

Anecdotes of the Russell Family—• 
Intimately connected as this family is to Blooms¬ 
bury, and dear and illustrious as it is in the 
history of our country, it becomes imperative to 
enter into some particulars of it, and especially 
of its first introduction to this parish. The an¬ 
cestors of the Russells are said to have had 


378 


possession of a landed estate in Dorsetshire, 
at an early period, and in 1221, John Russell 
was constable of Corfe Castle. William Russell 
in 1284, obtained a charter for a market, at his 
manor, Kingston-Russell, and he was member 
for the county of Southampton, in 1307. Sir 
John Russell, his lineal descendant, was Speaker 
of the House of Commons in 1434, and in 1432. 
His son, John Russell, lived at Barwick, four 
miles from Bridport, when a further occurrence 
led him to wealth and honour. In 1506, Philip, 
Archduke of Austria and King of Castile, was 
compelled by a violent storm, to put into Wey¬ 
mouth, and was entertained by Sir Thomas 
Trenehard, who sent for Mr. Russell, knowing 
he understood foreign languages, having travelled 
abroad, to converse with him. The Archduke 
was so much pleased with him, that he took 
him to court, and recommended him warmly to 
the King, who made him immediately one of 
the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber. He 
afterwards attended Henry VIII. in his expedi¬ 
tion to France, and was present at the taking 
several towns, for which service he obtained some 
lands. In 1522, he was knighted by the Earl 
of Surry, for his services in Bretagne, and was 
created Lord Russell, in 1539, and afterwards 
Earl of Bedford. Francis, fourth Earl in lineal 
succession from the first, in the reign of James I. 
and Charles I. had four sons, and five daughters. 
His sons were, William, his successor Francis, 
who died unmarried; John, a Colonel in the 
Civil Wars, for King Charles I. and Edward, 
whose son Edward went over to the Prince of 
Orange, in the time of James II. and was after¬ 
wards the famous Admiral Russell. The four 
daughters were, Lady Katherine, (the eldest,) 


379 


who married Robert Lord Broke ; the Lady 
Anne, afterwards wife to George Earl of Bristol; 
the Lady Margaret, married to James Hay, 
Earl of Carlisle ; and the Lady Diana, married to 
Frances, Lord Newport. 

William, Earl of Bedford, was at first Master 
of the Horse to the Parliament, and was mainly 
instrumental in gaining the Battle of Edgehill, 
where he commanded the reserve. Without 
entering mifiutely into the intermediate occurren¬ 
ces of his life, it is sufficient to observe that he 
assisted at the conferences, previous to the 
restoration, and bore St. Edward’s Sceptre, at 
the coronation of Charles II. 

He married Anne, daughter to Robert Carr, 
Earl of Somerset, and Francis Howard, he had 
seven sons, and three daughters; of the former, 
the eldest was the celebrated Lord William 
Russell, who married, as has been stated, at 
page 136, Rachel, daughter, and co-heiress of 
Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, by 
whom he left issue one son, and two daughters* 
(See page 94 .) 


* Lady Rachel Russell, the eldest daughter of Lord 
William and Lady Russell, was married to Willian Lord 
Cavendish, afterwards Duke of Devonshire; and the second. 
Lady Catherine, married John Manners, Lord Ross, after¬ 
wards Duke of Rutland. Wriothesly the son, married Eliza¬ 
beth, only daughter of John Howland, Esq. and succeeded his 
grandfather as Duke of Bedford, in 1700, and died of the 
small-pox. May 26th, 1711, aged 31. He was succeeded in 
the Dukedom, by Wriothesly, his son, who married Lady Anne 
Egerton, daughter of Scroop, Duke of Bridgewater, but dying 
without issue October 3rd, 1733, his only surviving brother, 
John, born September 30th, 1710, became the Duke. John, 
the Fourth Duke of Bedford, married to his second wife. Lady 
Gertrude, Daughter of John Earl Gower, and had issue one 




880 


Lady Rachel Russell was a most exemplary 
woman, and an ornament to her sex. She had 
the merit of reclaiming her Lord from the 
fashionable vices of the profligate court of 
Charles II. Her attendance upon him at his 
trial, and rendering him her best assistance, as 
his amanuensis, when counsel was refused, was 
highly creditable to her affection as a wife, and 
must ever render her an object of sympathy and 
veneration. 

The following short note to him in prison, 
the day before his trial, is delightfully expres¬ 
sive of her zeal and anxiety on his account, 
combining, as it does, firmness with affection. 
(Lady Russell to Lord Russell,) endorsed , “To 
ask his leave to be at his trial.” 

“Your friends, believing I can do you some 
service at your trial, I am extreme willing to 
try, if my resolution will hold out—pray let 
your’s. But it may be the court will not let 
me; however, do you let me try.” 

When judgment was given, the importunity 
of his friends, and the deep distress of a wife, 
whom he tenderly loved, prevailed upon Lord 
Russell to take another step to save his life. 
This was to write petitions to the King, and to 
the Duke of York, offering to live abroad, and 
never to meddle in the affairs of England. His 
Father, the Earl of Bedford, also sent a most 
affecting one full of submission, and offering 
pecuniary sacrifices, could his son's life be spared. 


daughter named Caroline, afterwards Duchess of Marlborough, 
and one son, named Francis, who succeeded his father, as 
Duke of Bedford, and was grandfather of Francis, the late 
Duke. He died March 2nd, 1802, and was succeeded by the 
present John, Duke of Bedford. 



381 


All was ineffectual, and nothing remained, 
but to prepare for death. In his discourse in 
prison, he lamented the cloud which hung over 
his country; but he hoped his death would do 
more service than his life could have done. 

The day before his execution, he received a 
few of his friends, and took his last leave of his 
children. On this occasion, the fondness of a 
father did not prevent him from maintaining 
the constancy of his temper. A little before he 
went to eat his supper, he said to Lady Russell, 
“Stay, and sup with me, let us eat our last 
earthly meal together.” He talked very cheer¬ 
fully, during supper, on various subjects, and 
particularly of his two daughters He men¬ 
tioned several passages of dying men with great 
freedom of spirit; and when a note was sent to 
his wife, containing a new project for his pre¬ 
servation, he turned it into ridicule in such a 
manner, that those who were with him, and 
not themselves able to contain their grief, were 
amazed. They could not conceive how his 
heart, naturally so tender, could resist the 
impression of their service. In the day time he 
bled at the nose, on which he said : “ I shall 
not now let blood to divert this; that will be 
done to morrow.” And when it rained hard that 
night, he said; “ Such a rain to morrow will 
spoil a great show, which is a dull thing on a 
rainy day.” 

Before his wife left him, he took her by the 
hand, and said, “This flesh you now feel, in a 
few hour’s must be cold,” At ten o’clock she 
left him. He kissed her four or five times ; and 
she so governed her sorrow, as not to add, by 
the sight of her distress, to the pain of separa¬ 
tion. Thus they parted, not with sobs and 


382 


tears, but with a composed silence: the wife 
wishing to spare the feelings of the husband, 
and the husband of the wife, they both restrained 
the expression of a grief, too great to be relieved 
by utterance. When she had left him for ever, 
he ran into a long discourse concerning this 
amiable woman: he said, “ there was a signal 
providence from God, in giving him such a wife 
where there was birth, fortune, great under¬ 
standing, great religion, and great kindness to 
him, but her carriage to him in his last extremity, 
was beyond all—that he was glad that she and 
her children were to lose nothing by his death ; 
and it was great comfort to him, that he left his 
children in such a mother’s hands, and that she 
had promised him to take care of herself for 
their sake. 

He refused to let his servant sit up in his 
chamber while he slept; and when his servant 
went to him at four, he was asleep as soundly 
as he had ever been in his life, and when his 
servant awoke him, and was preparing his things 
for him to dress, he fell asleep again. Dr. Bur¬ 
nett coming in, woke him, saying, “ What, my 
Lord, asleep?” “ Yes, Doctor,” lie said, I have 
slept heartily since one o’clock. He then 
desired him to go to his wife to say he was well, 
and slept well, and hoped she had done so. 
He remembered himself kindly to her, and 
prayed for her. He dressed himself with the 
same ease as usual, and said, he thanked God 
he felt no sort of fear or hurry in his thoughts. 
He told Burnet he was to give him his watch,* 


* This watch, together with his sword, and other mementos, 
are still in the possession of the family. I was once shewn 
them at the Bedford Office, Montague Street. 



383 


and as he wound it up, he said, “ I have done 
with time—now eternity comesT 

As the carriage turned into Little Queen-street, 
that was conveying him to the place of his mar¬ 
tyrdom, he said, “I have often turned to the 
other hand with great comfort, but now I turn 
to this with greater.” As he said this, he looked 
towards his own residence/' Southampton-house, 
Bloomsbury, andDr.Tillotson sawa tear drop from 
his eye. When at the place of execution, after 
the preparation of prayer, and conversing with 
the Sheriff, and those around him, he calmly 
took off his coat, waistcoat, and cravat, and 
drew a night-cap out of his pocket, which he 
had provided, fearing his servant might not be 
able to get up to him. The whole of these 
preliminaries he performed without the least 
change of countenance ; and then being ready, 
he laid his head on the block. “ When he had 
laid down,” says Dr. Burnet, “ I once looked at 
him, and saw no change in his looks ; and though 
he was still lifting up his hands, there was no 
trembling, though at the moment in which I 
looked, the executioner happened to be laying 
his axe to his neck, to direct him to take aim: 
I thought it touched him, but am sure he seemed 
not to mind it.” The executioner at two strokes 
cut off his head. This was in the middle of 
Lincoln’s-Inn Fields. 

Lady Russell, after the death of her Lord, 
removed to Woburn, where she mostly resided 


* Lord William Russell resided here, and at Southampton 
House, Holborn, (on the site of Southampton Buildings,) 
alternately. This had belonged to the family of the South¬ 
ampton’s from the time of Wriotheslev, Lord Chancellor, in 
Henry Vlllths. time. 



384 


for more than a twelvemonth after that event. 
In a letter she wrote to Dr. Fitzwilliam, dated 
1st October, 1684, she thus pourtrays her melan¬ 
choly feelings, when contemplating her return 
to Southampton House, Bloomsbury.* 

“ I have to acquaint you with my resolve to 
try that desolate habitation of mine, in London, 
this winter. The doctor agrees it is the best 
place for my boy, and I have no argument to 
balance that, nor could I take the resolution to 
see London till that was urged ; but, by God’s 
permission, I will try how I can endure that 
place in thought—a place of terror to me !” 

She spent her remaining long life in acts of 
charity and piety, and was held in great esteem 
by Archbishop Tillotson, and many other vir¬ 
tuous characters of her day. Among her other 
afflictions, she lost her only son, (May 26th, 
1711, aged 31,) who inherited the title of Earl 
of Bedford, and whom she watched over with 
unceasing care. In the midst of health and 
vigour he fell a sacrifice to the small-pox, which 
at that period was regarded as the direst plague, 
neitherinnoculation or vacillation, being known 
as mediums of arresting its ravages. She lived 
to see the sentence of her murdered Lord re¬ 
versed, and so denominated by parliament, 
although her feelings were greatly shaken by 
the minuteness of the investigation it under¬ 
went in the Commons. It is well known, and 
generally admitted, that the greatest injustice 
was exercised to convict Lord Russell, by a 


* Oldmixon says, “ The Duke of York descended so low 
in his revenge against Lord Russell, as to desire this innocent 
Lord might be executed before his own door , in Bloomsbury 
Square, an insult llie King himself would not consent to.” 



385 


false construction of the law of treason, and 
the selection of the jury by a violation of the 
rules of decency, and the rights of the subject. 
Lord John Russell, (his elegant biographer,) 
admits that his ancestor was too violent against 
the Roman Catholics, which was the fault of 
the honest men of that day, whilst he treats the 
Rye-House plot as an infamous faction, and 
Lady Rachel was fully assured it had no other 
foundation than idle talk. She wrote a most 
touching letter to the King, after her Lord’s 
death; and a collection of her letters, which do 
credit to her head and heart, was published in 
1773. In these, she gives evident specimens 
of her calm magnanimity; there appears 
no triumph of expression, in the record she 
gives of the flight of King James II. and she 
passes over in silence the merited fate of Jeffries, 
whose rudeness and coarseness was so conspi¬ 
cuous on the trial.* * 

The mansion of the Earls of Bedford, before 
this union with the Southampton family, was 
at nearly the bottom of what is now Southamp¬ 
ton Street, Strand, and was built principally of 
wood, as a town residence, and it remained so 
till 1704, under the name of Bedford House. 
It was inclosed by a brick wall, and had a large 
garden extending northward, nearly to the site 
of the present market place. The estate, com- 


* Mr. Fox, speaking of the destruction of those eminent 
patriots, Russell and Sydney, says, they are “ two names that 
will, it is hoped, be for ever dear to every English heart: 
when their memory shall cease to be an object of respect and 
veneration, it requires no spirit of prophecy to foretel that 
English liberty will be fast approaching to its final consum¬ 
mation.^ See Fob's Life of James II. 

c c 



386 


prising Convent, or Covent Garden, and the 
contiguous lands, belonged originally to the 
Abbots of Westminster, till the dissolution, 
after which it was granted by Edward VI. to 
the Duke of Somerset. It reverted, by patent, 
after the Duke’s attainder, to John Russell, 
Earl of Bedford, and Lord Privy Seal, (March, 
1552,) per Bill Dorn. Regis. “ of the gift of the 
Covent, or Convent Garden, lying in the parish 
of St. Martin’s in the Fields, near Charing 
Cross, with seven acres, called Long Acre, of 
the yearly value of £6 6s. 8d. parcel of the 
possessions of the late Duke of Somerset, to 
have to him and his heirs, reserving a tenure to 
the King’s Majesty in suage and not in capite.” 
It was immediately after that the Earl built the 
mansion in question ; and on Lady Russell’s de¬ 
mise it was deserted, and Southampton House 
became thedi ca’ residence, changing its name 
to Bedford House.* All the land where the 


* ie May 7th. The Duke of Bedford having disposed of the 
materials of Bedford-house for 5 or ,£6000, a sale of the fur¬ 
niture, pictures, &c. by Mr. Christie, commenced this day, 
when the most crowded assemblage were gratified with a last 
view of this design of Inigo Jones for the Earl of Southamp¬ 
ton, father of the amiable relict of William, Lord Russell; 
from whence she dates many of her letters, published by Mr. 
Selwood, and resided in it till her death, 1723. The late 
Duke fitted up the gallery (which was the only room of con¬ 
sequence in the house) and placed in it Sir James Thornhill’s 
copies of the Cartoons, which that artist was three years about, 
which he bought at the sale of that eminent artist’s collec¬ 
tion for <£200. St. John preaching in the Wilderness, by 
Raphael, fetched 95 guineas. A beautiful painting, by Gains¬ 
borough, of an Italian Villa, 90 guineas. The archduke I<eo- 
pold’s gallery, by Teniers, 210 guineas. Four paintings of a 
battle, by Cassanovi, which cost his grace <£1000, were sold 




387 


former Bedford House stood has been built on, 
the house being demolished, and the several 
streets have been named after the family, as 
Bedford, Russell, Tavistock, Southampton, 
Chandos Streets, Sec. King and Henrietta 
Streets were named in honour of Charles IT. 
and his Queen, being built on at an early pe¬ 
riod; and James and York Streets, in honour of 
the Duke of York, afterwards King James II. 

Southampton Family. —The Earls of 
Southampton became residents in Bloomsbury 
in consequence of^ their becoming proprietors 
of that manor, and, subsequently, of that of 
St. Giles. Wriothesley, Lord Chancellor in 
the reign of Henry VIII., is supposed to have 
been the first occupant of the manorial mansion, 
which had previously, with the manor, been in 
the possession of the family of the De Ble- 
munds. Hence this residence took the name of 
Southampton House, until it became the pro¬ 
perty of the Russell family, when it assumed 
the name of Bedford House, to which we have 
before adverted. Wriothesley was created Earl 

for CO guineas. A most beautiful Landscape, by Cuype, for 
200 guineas. Two beautiful bronze figures, Venus de Medi- 
cis and Antonius, 20 guineas ; and Venus couchant, from the 
antique, 20 guineas. Another of the pictures was the duel 
between Lord Mahon and the Duke of Hamilton. The week 
after were sold, the double rows of lime-trees in the garden, 
valued one at £90, the other at <£80 ; which are now all taken 
down, and the site of a new square, of nearly the dimensions 
of Lincoln’s-lnn Fields, and to be called Russell Square, has 
been laid out. The famous statue of Apollo, which was in the 
hall at Bedford-house, has been removed toWoburn-abbey, and 
is to be placed on an eminence in the square between the 
abbey and the tennis-court and riding.house. It originally 
cost a thousand guineas.”— Sec Doddei/s Annual Register , 
1800. 


c c 2 





388 


of Southampton three days before the corona¬ 
tion of Edward VI. (1547) and having another 
mansion on the site of where Southampton 
Buildings stand, he resided at each house alter¬ 
nately. This latter house was called Southamp¬ 
ton House, Holborn, to distinguish it from the 
former. He died 20th July, 1550, at his house 
in Holborn, and was buried at his parish church, 
St. Andrew’s.* 

His second son, Henry, succeeded him as 
Earl of Southampton, who being implicated in 
the intrigues of Mary Queen of Scots, and 
others, narrowly escaped the block. He left 
issue a daughter, married to Thomas Lord 
Arundel, of Wardour; and an only son, Henry, 
third Earl of Southampton, and the munificent 
patron of Shakspeare. He purchased the ma¬ 
nor of St. Giles and united it to Bloomsbury, 
as before stated. (Seepage 135.J His son, the 
fourth Earl of Southampton, was Thomas, Lord 
Treasurer to Charles II. and father of Lady 


* The following cruel account is given of this man, by Fox, 
iu his Acts and Monuments. “ Anne Ascue, a young woman 
of merit and beauty, was accused of dogmatizing on the real 
presence in the Eucharist. The Chancellor, Wriothesley, 
was sent to examine her with regard to her patrons at court, 
but she maintained a laudable fidelity to her friends, and would 
confess nothing. She was put to the torture in the most bar. 
barous manner, and continued still resolute in preserving 
secrecy. The Chancellor, who stood by, ordered the Lieutenant 
of the Tower to stretch the raek farther, hut that officer re¬ 
fused compliance. The chancellor menaced him, but met 
with a new refusal; upon which, that magistrate, intoxicated 
with religious zeal, put his own hand to the rack, and drew it 
so violently that he almost tore her body asunder. Her con¬ 
stancy still prevailed, and she was condemned to be burnt alive, 
and was carried to the stake with her limbs dislocated.” 



389 


Rachel, the worthy and celebrated wife of Lord 
William, whom we have already spoken 
of. To this lady the manors above men¬ 
tioned descended, being left to her, in her own 
right, by her father, who died in 1668. 

Abraham Speck art. Esq. —This gentle¬ 
man ought to be mentioned for his useful services 
to the parish, especially in regard to the re¬ 
building the church in 1623, which has been 
already noticed. He resided near the church, 
in what was then termed Middle Row, (not 
the present building of that name), which ap¬ 
pears to be at the time one of the most respect¬ 
able parts of the parish ; and was one of four 
parishioners living on that spot, to whom the 
favour was granted of a private entrance from 
their houses into the church-yard. Mrs. Doro¬ 
thy Speckart, the widow, seems to have died 
some years after her husband, as a vestry mi¬ 
nute of 1670 directs, “ the late Mrs. Speckart r s 
door into the church to be shut-up.” Mr. 
Speckart’s name, in the parish books, has al¬ 
ways the addition of “ Esquire” put to it, 
which was a title not then prostituted as now, 
and seems to infer that he was rather a private 
gentleman than a merchant or trader; his do¬ 
mestic establishment also, as enumerated in 
the assessment of 1623, was extensive. A 
greater proof, however, of this being the fact, 
and also of his opulence, was the circumstance 
of the consecration feast before mentioned 
being held at his house, which must have been 
no ordinary mansion to have contained so large 
and brilliant a company as assembled on that 
occasion. 

Historical Account of the Revolu¬ 
tion Plot. —Bloomsbury has the honour to be 


390 


the scene of a plot most momentous to the fu¬ 
ture welfare of Britain, yet it does not seem to 
be known to any considerable extent, nor pro¬ 
perly appreciated. The subject to which I am 
referring is to be found in the biography of 
Mrs. Thomas —the celebrated Corinna. She 
had undergone many vicissitudes, but above all, 
in her widowed state she had been the dupe of a 
visionary alchymist, whose scheming impo¬ 
verished herself and daughter. Time and 
patience at last overcame the pangs this pro¬ 
duced, and she began to stir among her late 
husband’s great clients. She took a house in 
Bloomsbury, and by means of good economy 
and an elegant appearance, was supposed to be 
better in the world than she really was. Her 
husband’s clients received her like one risen 
from the dead; they came to visit her, and pro¬ 
mised to serve her. At last the Duke of Mon¬ 
tague advised her to let lodgings, which way 
of life she declined, as her talents were not 
suited for dealing with ordinary lodgers ; but, 
added she, “ if I knew any family who de¬ 
sired such a conveniency, 1 would readily ac¬ 
commodate them,” “ I take you at your word,” 
replied the Duke, “ I will become your sole 
tenant; nay, don’t smile, for I am in earnest: I 
like a little more freedom than I can enjoy at 
home, and I may come sometimes and eat a bit 
of mutton with four or five honest fellows, 
whose company I delight in.” The bargain 
was bound, and proved matter of fact, though 
on a deeper scheme than drinking a bottle ; 
and his Grace was to pass for Mr. Freeman of 
Hertfordshire. In a few days he ordered a 
dinner for his beloved friends, Jack, Tom, Will, 
and Ned, good honest country fellows, as his 


391 


Grace called them. They came at the time 
appointed, but how surprised was the widow 
when she saw the Duke of Devonshire, Lords 
Buckingham and Dorset, and a certain Vis¬ 
count, with Sir William Dutton Colt, under 
these feigned names. After several times meet¬ 
ing at this lady’s house, the noble persons, who 
had a high opinion of her integrity, intrusted 
her with the grand secret,, which was nothing- 
less than the project for the revolution. Though 
these meetings were held as private as possible, 
yet suspicions arose, and Mrs. Thomas’s house 
was narrowly watched ; but the messengers, 
who were no enemies to the cause, betrayed 
their trust, and suffered the noblemen to meet 
unmolested, or at least without any dread of 
apprehension. 

The revolution being effected, and the state 
become more settled, that place of rendezvous 
was quitted; the noblemen took leave of the 
lady, with promises of obtaining a pension or 
some place in the household for her, as her 
zeal in that cause highly merited ; besides, she 
had a very good claim to some appointment,, 
having been ruined by the shutting-up the Ex¬ 
chequer; but alas! court promises proved an 
aerial foundation, and the noble peers never 
thought of her more. The Duke of Montague 
indeed made offers of service, and being. Cap¬ 
tain of the Band of Pensioners, she asked him; 
to admit Mr. Gwinnet, a gentleman who had 
made love to her daughter, into such a post. 
This he promised, but upon these terms> that 
her daughter should ask him for it. The widow 
thanked him, and not suspecting that any design 
was covered under this offer, concluded her¬ 
self sure of success; but how amazed was she 


392 


to find her daughter, whom she had bred in the 
most passive subjection, and who had never 
discovered the least instance of disobedience, 
absolutely refused to ask any such favour of 
his Grace. She could not be prevailed on either 
by flattery or threatening, and continuing still 
obstinate in her resolution, her mother obliged 
her to explain herself on the point of her re¬ 
fusal. She told her, that the Duke of Montague 
had already made an attack upon her, that his 
designs were dishonourable, and that if she 
submitted to ask his Grace one favour, he would 
reckon himself secure of another in return, 
which he would endeavour to accomplish by 
the basest means. This explanation was too 
satisfactory : Who does not see the meanness of 
of such ungenerous conduct ? He had made 
use of the mother as a tool for carrying on po¬ 
litical designs : he found her distressed ; and as 
a recompence for her services, and under the 
pretence of mending her fortune, attempted 
the virtue of her daughter; and would provide 
for her on no other terms, but at the price of 
her child’s innocence. In the meantime the 
young Corinna, a poetical name given her by 
Mr. Dryden, continued to improve her mind 
by reading the politest authors. ( See volume XII. 
of the General Biographical Dictionary.) 

Biographical Sketches of some of the Donors to 
the Charities in St. Giles and Bloomsbury . 

Hon. Robert Bertie. —He was the son 
and fifth child of the great Robert Bertie, Earl 
of Lindsey, slain 1642, at the battle of Edge- 
liill, • and was born 1619. His elder brother, 
Montague, succeeded to the title, and was 
afterwards (as his ancestors had been) Lord 


393 


great Chamberlain of England, and whose 
grandson, in 1706, (5th of Anne) was created 
Marquis of Lindsey. This family, afterwards 
the ducal family of Ancaster, resided for many 
years at the mansion called Lindsey, and sub¬ 
sequently Ancaster House, Lincoln’s-Inn Fields. 
He, (Robert Bertie) was donor of £50 to the 
poor. 

William Shelton, Esq —Founder and 
endower of the Free School which bears his 
name, was a vestryman, and served the office 
of overseer in 1689. He was owner of a piece 
of ground on which the parish, during the 
plague of 1665, erected a pest-house. It is 
not known in what part it stood, but from the 
small sum it fetched, as stated in the parish 
accounts, it was probably a mere temporary 
building of timber. He seems to have been 
an illiterate man, from his prefixing his cross 
to his will instead of his name. He died 1673. 
{See page 251.) 

William Bainbridge, Esq. —(or Ben- 
brig, as he is called in the vestry minutes), 
gave the name to a street in St. Giles’s parish. 
He was chosen a vestryman in 1669. He was 
the donor of £300 towards building a gallery 
in the church, the produce of which pew rents 
were to be given to the poor: this however has 
not been fulfilled, and an inquiry on the sub¬ 
ject has been recently set on foot, (vide p. 266.) 

William Wooden —the donor to the poor 
of the rent charge, issuing from the Hampshire 
Hog, was churchwarden during the plague 
1665. He was elected a vestryman in 1672, 
but he vacated in 1675, probably from age, or 
an idea of his approaching death, as he obtained 
an order that year to erect a grave-stone for 


394 


himself similar to Captain Hooper’s, though 
his will is dated two years later. He had been 
a parishioner some years, having served the 
office of overseer in # 1653. 

Robert Hulcup, Esq. —appears to have 
been a parishioner of much respectability, and 
besides his personal services as one of the di¬ 
rectors of the parish concerns, was also a con¬ 
siderable benefactor to the poor at his decease. 
He was chosen vestryman in 1667, and con¬ 
tinued so till 1682. He was churchwarden in 
1671, having been overseer previously, and 
was on most committees for conducting the 
parochial affairs. His legacy of £80 was re¬ 
covered, (after some trouble) for the use of the 
poor in 1686. 

Richard Holford,Esq. —wasthesuccessor 
of the family of that name, who were in posses¬ 
sion, by purchase, of some of the hospital es¬ 
tates after its dissolution, (see page 75.) The 
gentleman we are speaking of flourished during 
the interregnum, and great part of the reign of 
Charles II. The first mention of him in the 
books is anno 1653, as the donor to the poor of 
£4 per annum for ever; and in 1655-6 he is 
again mentioned as to the same gift, and the 
sum stated to be £5 yearly, instead of £4. 
In 1659 his principal donation (the Prince’s 
Street estate), was secured by a deed of feoff¬ 
ment from him, therein described as Richard 
Holford, of the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 
to the then minister, Thomas Case, and other 
trustees. This estate still belongs to the parish. 
He seems to have had a monument in the' old 
St. Giles’s church. 

Bartholomew Overy, orlvERY —with his 
wife “ Jane,” were donors of the estate in the 


395 


Almonry, (which consisted of three tenements 
in Great Arnbrey , Westminster , as his will ex¬ 
presses it) for the use of the poor. These 
were subsequently sold, and the receipts, Mr. 
Parton says, carried to the churchwarden’s 
account for them. These donors lived in 1623 
atTowns-end, St. Giles, but afterwards removed 
to Westminster, where Overv died in 1647. 
The churchwarden’s accounts of that year thus 
notice the circumstance:—“ 1647. Paid for 
the buriall of Bartholomew Overy, who died 
at Westminster, and desired to be buried at 
St. Giles’s; who, by will dated 6th January, 
1647, hath given to the poor of this parish, 
(after the decease of his wife Jane), three te¬ 
nements, (see above ), being college land.” 


AN APPENDIX, 


The following Acts, being the most applicable 
to the United Parishes, are abstracted, with the 
idea of their proving useful, by conveying infor¬ 
mation to the inhabitants, many of them being 
unacquainted therewith. We begin with 

The celebrated Act 43 of Queen Elizabeth, Anno 
1600. 

1. It provides, that the churchwardens of every parish, or 
parishes, to be called Overseers of the Poor, shall be nomi¬ 
nated yearly, in Easter-week, or within a month after, under 
the hand and seal of two or more Justices of the Peace, in the 
same county where the parish lies. 

2. That they, or the greater part of them, shall, with the 
consent of the Justices, set the children to work in their 
respective parishes, when their parents are known not to be 
able to keep and maintain them. Also, they were to set to 
work all such persons, married or unmarried, having no means 
to maintain them, and use no ordinary and daily trade of life 
to get their living by. 

3. It then provides for the raising, by weekly taxation, or 
otherwise, such sums from the inhabitants, as shall be compe¬ 
tent for the purchasing flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, and 
other ware, and stuff to set the poor on work. Also competent 




397 


sums for the necessary relief of the lame and impotent, old, 
blind, and such other among them, not able to work: to put 
out children to be apprentices. 

4. The overseers are then enjoined to meet monthly, toge¬ 
ther with the churchwardens, after the Sunday afternoon 
service, to render an account of monies received and expended* 
&c. Penalty for not attending, 20s. unless lawful reasons for 
absence be given. 

5. When any parish is unable to procure funds for the 
above purposes, two Justices are empowered to tax, rate, and 
assess any other parish, or parishes, within the hundred ; and 
if the said hundred shall not be thought able by the said 
Justices, then they shall be empowered, at their General 
Quarter Sessions, to assess other parishes within the county . 

6. The churchwardens and overseers are empowered to levy 
the rates by distraint, or to commit defaulters to prison, until 
payment is made ; and, also, the Justices are to commit those 
who are able, refusing to work ; and farther, also, commit to 
prison the churchwardens and overseers who refused to 
accompt. 

7. Children to be bound apprentice; males not till they are 
twenty-four, and females not till they are twenty-one, unless they 
become married. 

8. Cottages to be erected on any waste, or common, of 
any parish by leave of the Lord of the manor, for the conve¬ 
nient reception of the impotent poor. 

9. Persons aggrieved by assessments, imposed by the 
churchwardens and overseers, may appeal to the Quarter 
Sessions—their decision to be final and binding. 

10. The father, grandfather, mother and grandmother, and 
the children of every poor, old, blind, &c. person, not able to 
work, being of sufficieut substance, shall, at their own charge, 
relieve and maintain such poor person, as shall be prescribed 
by the magistrates. 


398 


11. Officers of Corporate Towns, as Mayors, Bailiffs, &c. 
and Aldermen of the City of London, to have similar anthority 
as Justices. 

12. When parishes extend into two counties, or where they 
are partly in two liberties of any City, Town, or Place Corpo¬ 
rate, the Magistrates, &c. shall only intermeddle with such 
portions respectively, with certain exceptions. 

13. If Overseers are not nominated and appointed yearly* 
Justices, Mayors, &c. where such default occurs, are to be 
fined £5 towards the relief of the poor. 

14. Directions are given how forfeitures should be em¬ 
ployed and levied ; Justices, at their General Sessions, holden 
next after Easter, are empowered to rate every parish to such 
a weekly sum as they think convenient, not exceeding six¬ 
pence, nor under the sum of a half-penny weekly ; and so as 
the total sum of each amount, not to above the rate of two¬ 
pence for every parish within the said county; which sums, 
so taxed, shall be yearly assessed by the agreement of the 
parishioners within themselves, or in default thereof, by the 
churchwardens and petty constables of the same parish, or the 
mere part of them; or, in default of their agreement, by the 
Justice, or Justices of the peace, in or near the said parish. 
Penalties are to be exacted. 

15. Relief is next provided for prisoners in the King's 
Bench, Marshaisea, Hospitals, and Alms-houses. Twenty 
shillings at least to be sent out of every county, with other 
provisos, as to surplusages, &c. &c. 


An Act for remy dying some defects in the Act made 
in the ASrdyear of the reign of Queen Elizabeth , 
intituled “ An Act for the Relief of the FoorT 

1. The preamble states that the former act contains some 
defects, whereby the money, raised for that purpose, was liable 





399 


to be misapplied ; added to which, great difficulties and delays # 
often occurred in raising the same. It then prescribes, that 
from and after the 24th of June, 1744, the churchwardens and 
overseers of the poor, shall yearly, and every year, within 
fourteen days after other overseers shall be nominated, and 
appointed to succeed them, deliver unto such succeeding 
overseers, a just, true, and perfect account, in writing, fairly 
entered in a book or books for that purpose, and signed by 
the said churchwardens and overseers, hereby directed to 
account, as aforesaid, under their hands, of all sums of money 
by them received or rated and assessed, and not received ; and 
also, of all goods, chatties, stock, and materials that shall be 
on their hands, or in the hands of any of the poor, in order to 
be wrought, and of all monies paid by such churchwardens 
and overseers so accounting, and of all other things concern¬ 
ing their said office; and shall also pay and deliver all sums 
of money, goods, &c. and other things, as shall be in their 
hands, unto such succeeding overseers of the poor; which 
said account shall be verified by oath, or by the affirmation of 
persons called quakers, before one or more of his Majesty’s 
Justices of the Peace, which said oath and affirmation, such 
said Justice and Justices is and are hereby authorised and 
required to administer, and to sign and attest the caption of 
the same at the foot of the said account, without fee or re¬ 
ward ; and the said book or books shall be carefully preserved 
by the churchwardens and overseers, or one of them, in some 
public or other place in every parish, township, or place; and 
they shall and are hereby required to permit any person, 
there assessed , or liable to be assessed, to inspect the same , at 
all reasonable times, paying six-pence for such inspection ; 
and shall, upon demand, forthwith give copies of the same, 
or any part thereof, to such person, paying at the rate of 
six-pence for every three hundred ivords , and so on in pro¬ 
portion for any greater or less number. 

2. The next clause exacts the penalty of imprisonment, in 
the county goal, upon any churchwarden or overseer that shall 


400 


refuse to perform what is before required, therein to remain 
till they yield obedience fully to the conditions prescribed 
at large. 

3. Overseers dying to be replaced by two justices, and 
executors to account in forty days to a remaining overseer 
or churchwarden. 

4. Persons aggrieved by any rate or assessment made for 
the relief of the poor, or shall have any material objection to 
any person or persons being put on, or left out of such rate or 
assessment, or to the sum charged on any person or persons 
therein, or shall have any material objection to such accounts 
as aforesaid, or any part thereof, or shall find him, her, or 
themselves aggrieved by any neglect, act, or thing done, by the 
churchwardens and overseers of the poor, or by any of his 
Majesty’s justices of the peace; it shall, and may be lawful 
for such person or persons, in any of the cases aforesaid, giving 
reasonable notice to the churchwardens and overseers of the 
poor of the parish, township, or place, to appeal to the next 
Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county, riding, &c. 

5. The justices there assembled are to receive such appeal, 
and to hear and determine the same, notice being given in 
due time. Reasonable costs to be allowed, as stated in an act 
made to remedy defects in the Poor Laws, in the 8th and 9th 
of William III. 

6. Justices of the peace may quash the old rates, or make 
new rates and assessments, from which no appeal can be had, 
as it had been formerly held , from rates and assessments, the 
justices of the peace are required to amend the same, where 
they shall see just cause to give relief, without altering s?ich 
rates and assessments , with respect to other persons men¬ 
tioned in the same ; but if\ from an appeal from the while 
rate , it shall be found necessary to quash or set aside the 
same, then, and in every such case, the said justices shall, and 
are hereby required, to order and direct the churchwardens 
and overseers of the poor to make a new equal rate or assess¬ 
ment, and they are required to make the same accordingly, 


401 


*7. The next clause is for the more effectual levying 1 money 
assessed for the relief of the poor, either in the parish where 
due, or any other part of that, or other county where the party 
is removed to, or has property, subject however to an appeal 
to the Quarter Sessions. 

8. A clause is afterwards inserted to prevent vexatious 
actions against overseers, who made distresses iu such cases. 

9. Plaintiffs recovering in any action to have full costs, as 
in other cases ; but they cannot recover for any irregularity, if 
tender of amends hath been made by the parties distraining, 
before such actions is brought. 

10. Succeeding overseers may levy arrears to reimburse the 
former. 

11. Persons removing out of parishes without paying rates 
are liable, as also are their successors, in proportion to the 
time they are occupants respectively, and they are liable to 
distraint severally. 

12. All rates and assessments hereafter made for the relief 
of the poor , are directed by this act to be entered in a book 
or books, to be provided for that purpose by the churchwar¬ 
dens and overseers of the poor of every parish or place , who 
shall take care that such copies be wrote and entered accord¬ 
ingly, within fourteen days after all appeals from such rates 
are determined , and shall attest the same by putting their 
names thereto. The books to be carefully preserved by the 
churchwardens and overseers for the time being, or one of 
them, in some public or other place in every such parish, fyc. 
whereto all persons assessed may freely resort, and shall be 
delivered over from time to time to the succeeding church, 
wardens and overseers of the poor, as soon as they enter into 
their said offices, to be preserved as aforesaid, and shall be 
produced by them at the General or Quarter Sessions when 
any appeal is heard or determined. 

13. Penalties are prescribed against churchwardens and 
overseers, and others, who shall neglect or refuse to obey and 

D D 


402 


perform the several orders and directions of this Act, or any of 
them, where no penalty is before provided by this Act, or 
shall act contrary thereto. The penalty is stipulated not to 
exceed £ 5, nor less than 20s. for every such offence, to be 
levied by distress and sale of the offender's goods, &c. 

14. The power of overseers to be the same as that of 
churchwardens, where there are none of the latter, and the 
penalties the same. 

[The above is an abstract of an Act passed in 17th George 
II. cap. 3.] 


Act §th of Queen A?ine, cap. 22. Anno 1710. 

Entitled an act for granting to her majesty several duties 
upon Coals; for Building Fifty new Churches in and about 
the cities of London and Westminster, and suburbs thereof; 
and other purposes therein mentioned. 

The preamble states, that the commons of Great Britain are 
desirous to aid her majesty's pious intentions to encrease the 
number of churches in and near the metropolis, for which 
purpose, they, with the consent of the lords spiritual and 
temporal, with the approbation of the queen's most excellent 
majesty, had enacted, that a duty of two shillings upon every 
chaldron and tun of coals or culm, should be paid from and 
after the 14th May, 1716, until the 29th September, 1716, 
and duties in other proportions at certain periods therein men¬ 
tioned. 

It is then stated, that the sums so arising shall be paid into 
the exchequer, to be appropriated to the building the said 
churches of stone and other proper materials, with towers 
or steeples for each, for purchasing sites for the same, and for 
burying places, and for houses of habitation for the ministers. 

The sum of <£4,000 to be applied out of the said duties for 
repairing Westminster Abbey, and <£6,000 per annum towards 
the completion of Greenwich Hospital and its Chapel, and one 
Church, being one of the fifty to be built at East Greenwich 
in the county of Kent. 



403 


Her majesty was empowered to appoint commissioners for the 
purpose stated in the act. Money paid into the exchequer by 
way of loan to bear an interest of 6 per cent, within a certain pe¬ 
riod. One hundred chaldrons of coals for Greenwich Hospital 
annually to be exempt from duty. Other provisions are made 
as to surveyors’ and other salaries, &c. under Act of King 
William III. 


Act 1 ()th vf Queen Anne, cap . 11 th. Anno 1711. 

Entitled an Act for enlarging the time given to the com¬ 
missioners appointed by her majesty, pursuant to an Act for 
granting to her majesty several duties on Coals, for Building 
Fifty new Churches, &c. and also for giving the commissions 
farther powers for the better effecting the same, and for ap¬ 
pointing monies for building the parish church of St. Mary 
Wool noth in the city of London. 

The preamble recites the purposes and particulars for which 
the former act was made, stating that the commissions ap¬ 
pointed to carry the same into effect found the time mentioned 
too limited, and they are now empowered to continue their 
duties until the performance and finishing the building, &c. 
therein named. They were further empowered to make pur¬ 
chases of lands, and enter into contracts under the provisions 
of the act. Lands so purchased, with their tenements, &c. 
were to be conveyed to at least five commissioners. 

They were empowered to provide cemeteries for the parishes, 
even out of their limits, if necessary. Provision is made for 
receiving loans and paying interest of 6 per cent, and-for the 
treasury to issue money, &c. 

The 8th clause is most important as it regards Bloomsbury 
parish. It enacts , that it shall be lawful for the commissioners, 
or any Jive of them , by one or more instruments in writing 
on parchment under their hands and seals , to be enrolled in 
the high Court of Chancery , to describe and ascertain the 
D D 2 



404 


true limits and bounds of the site of and belonging to each 
such new church, and house for the habitation of the minister 
of such new church, and church-yards and cemeteries for 
each respective parish, and also the district and division of 
each parish that shall be appointed for every church to be 
erected or constituted pursuant to this act or the said former 
act ; and every such district or division so set out for a new 
parish shall, after such enrolment, and the consecration of 
such new church, be for ever deemed and taken to be of itself 
a distinct parish to all intents and purposes, excepting as 
touching the church rates, the relief of the poor, amd ratesfor 
the highways , as is herein after provided; and the inhabi¬ 
tants within the distinct limits of every such new parish, 
shall from henceforth be the parishioners thereof, and sub¬ 
ject to such taxes, rates, and assessments for the poor, 
cleansing the streets, and other duties within the said new 
parish, or the greater part thereof was divided and taken, 
are subject or chargeable with the same, and to be exempt 
within the space of one month after the consecration of such 
new church from the parish whence taken, and from all 
dependencies and contributions for or in respect thereof, 
except as is hereby otherwise enacted or provided. 

9. The commissioners are in this clause empowered to 
take a district out of any large parish ivhere any new 
church shall be made, and add it to a lesser parish adjoining, 
which shall be deemed part of the parish to which it is 
added, Sfc. 

10. Enacts that there shall be a rector in every new church, 
and a perpetual succession of such rectors. The morning 
preacher in any chapel converted into a new church shall be 
the first rector. In every other new church the queen shall 
nominate the first rector, (except Stepney , see 12 th of Anne, 
cap. 17.) The land and hereditaments purchased for such 
church, &c. the freehold is appointed to be vested in the rec¬ 
tors of such new parish respectively, and he is authorized to 


405 


purchase lands to the value of c£200 per annum for such 
church respectively. 

11. Empowers the commissioners to inquire of the right 
of patronage of the present churches, and agree with the 
patron who hath the right for the effectual dividing the pa¬ 
rish and the tithes, oblations, dues, revenues, fyc. All agree¬ 
ments on these points to be binding » 

12. Makes it lawful for persons to contract with the com¬ 
missioners for any lands, &c. and for settling the right of pa¬ 
tronage with corporations, &c. &c. 

13. Provides that such bargains, &c. be sanctioned by the 
chancery, &c. 

14. Provides that the crown shall present till such settle¬ 
ment of the right of patronage. 

15. Enacts that the first and succeeding rectors shall be pre¬ 
sented as other rectors are, and they and the churchwardens 
shall be subject to the ordinary. 

16. Contains farther regulations as to the tithes, &c. 

17 and 18. Regulates the distinct interest of proprietors of 
chapels as to their pews, &c. 

19. The first churchwardens and overseers for the poor, 
scavengers, surveyors, and other officers for every new parish, 
to be chosen by the commissioners, and shall be fully invested’ 
with the powers and authorities as officers of the like descrip¬ 
tion in any other parish in London and Westminster. 

20. It shall be lawful for the said commissionsers, or any 
Jive of them, ivith the consent of the bishop or ordinary of the 
place, by instrument under their hands and seals, to be en¬ 
rolled in the high Court of Chancery, to name a convenient 
number oj sufficient inhabitants in each such 7ieiv parish 
respectively, to be the vestrymen of each such new parish 
respectively, to be the vestrymen oj such new parish, who shall 
have and exercise the like powers and authorities for ordering 
and regulating the affairs of sueh new parish, as the ves¬ 
trymen of the present parish, out of which such new parish > 
or the greater part thereof, shall be taken, now have 
or exercise; and if there be no select vestry in such present 


406 


parish, then as the vestrymen of the parish of St. Martin 
in the Fields within the liberty of the city of Westminster 
in the county of Middlesex, now have or exercise; and from 
time to time, upon the death, removal, or other voidance of 
any such vestryman, the rest or majority of them may elect 
a ft person, being an inhabitant and householder in the 
said parish to supply the same. 

2L. Provided always, and it is hereby enacted and de¬ 
clared, that all parochial customs, usages, by-laws, and pri¬ 
vileges, as are notv in force or use within any present parish 
which shall be divided by virtue or in pursuance of this act, 
shall and may, at all times after and notwithstanding such 
division, continue and be in force, as well in and for 
every new parish, of which the whole or the greater part 
shall be taken out of such present parish, as in and for such 
parish as shall remain to the present parochial church, and 
be used, enjoyed, and observed by the inhabitants thereof 
respectively, so far as the same shall not be repugnant to 
or inconsistent with the laws of this realm. 

22. The commissioners in like manner are empowered, with 
the consent of the respective rectors, vicars, or ministers, 
churchwardens and overseers of the poor, and of the vestry, 
or twenty of the principal inhabitants of any present parish, 
in which there shall be no select vestry, from which any part 
or district shall, by virtue and in pursuance of this act be 
taken, and oj such parish or parishes to which any such dis~ 
strict or division so taken shall be appointed or belong , or 
else to or for such respective rectors, vicars, fyc. and vestry¬ 
men or principal inhabitants, with consent of their respec¬ 
tive ordinary or ordinaries, at any time or times hereafter, 
by instrument in writing under their hands and seals, to be 
enrolled in the high Court of Chancery, to make an effectual 
and perpetual division of such parishes or districts so di¬ 
vided as to the church rates, relief of the poor, and rates 
for the highways, and other parish rates within the same 


407 


respectively, and to limit and settle any certain annual 
sum or consideration for or in respect thereof, or for equality 
of such division, where there shall he occasion; and such 
division and settlement so made shall he for ever after 
binding, effectual, and conclusive, to all intents and purposes 
whatsoever. 

23. Provides that until such agreement for such rates 
respectively shall take place, they shall he levied as usual 
within the present parish. 

24. And for the better ordering, dividing, collecting, and 
distributing from time to time such rates within the present 
limits of every parish which shall be divided pursuant to this 
act, in the mean time, and until such further division shall 
he made , it shall and may be lawful to and for the churchwar¬ 
dens and overseers of the poor, with the vestry or principal 
inhabitants of each parish respectively, as aforesaid, to which 
any part or district of such present parish, after any division 
thereof to be made pursuant to this act, shall remain or belong,, 
to assemble and meet together in the present parish church or 
vestry room annually, upon Tuesday in Easter week in the 
forenoon, or oftener from time to time as occasion may required 
and notice shall he given thereof on the Lord’s day next be¬ 
fore in the church of each such parish immediately after 
the morning service; and to and for them, or the major part 
of them so assembled, to agree upon or ascertain the 
monies or rates to be assessed within the limits of such pre¬ 
sent parish for the relief of the poor, and other parish rates 
within such limits, or the repair of any church to which any 
part or district of .such present parish shall, when divided,, 
belong; and to divide, ascertain, and apportion such monies 
and rates to and upon every part or district of such present 
parish so divided respectively, with regard to the value of the 
lands and estates therein assessable to the same, which monies 
or rates so to be divided or apportioned, shall be assessed, 
levied, and collected in each such district accordingly, by the 
proper officers of the respective parish to which such district 


408 


shall remain or belong, and by such ways and means as the 
officers of the present parish might have assessed, collected, 
or levied, the same if such division or this act had not been 
made; and also to divide, ascertain, and distribute such monies 
and rates so assessed and collected through the present limits 
of such parish, in just and reasonable proportions to and for 
every such part and district respectively, as the same shall be 
divided separately and apart for the relief of the poor, and 
repair of the highways, and other parish rates within such 
part or district, and for the repair of the respective church to 
which such part or district shall remain or belong, with regard 
to the wants and occasions of each such part or district, for 
the uses and purposes aforesaid respectively; and all such 
proportions so to be distributed, shall be employed and ap¬ 
plied to the proper uses and purposes for which the same was 
assessed and shall be distinctly accounted for by the officers 
of the respective parish to which such district shall remain, 
or belong. 

25. Enacts that in default of such yearly agreements, &c. 
the parish officers for such districts shall assess all rates. 

26. Provides that this act shall not invalidate any ecclesi¬ 
astical law, or destroy the rights of the Bishop of London. 

The remaining clauses are not very important, being chiefly 
applicable to the issue of monies, repairs of Westminster Ab¬ 
bey, &c. referred to in former act. 


Actof3rd George II.cap.19, entituled “ An Act for 
providing a maintainance for the Minister of the 
new church near Bloomsbury Market , in the 
county of Middlesex; and for making more 
effectually an Act , passed in the Ath year of his 
late Majesty s reign, for empowering the Com - 



409 


missioners for building the fifty new churches, to 
direct the parish church of St. Giles in the 
Fields, in the said county, to be rebuilt, instead 
of one of the said churches . 

The preamble recites the particular nature and purpose of 
the Acts of 9th and 10th of Anne, in respect to the building 
the fifty new churches. 

It then refers to the successive Acts of the 1st of George I. 
and the 1st of George II. cap. 8, applicable to the Acts of 
Anne, and authorising a fund of <£360,000 for the said build¬ 
ing, in lieu of certain former provisions. 

It then proceeds to state, that " a site for a church had been 
purchased, and a new church built thereupon, near Blooms¬ 
bury Market, in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields, in the 
county of Middlesex; and a site for a house for a minister 
hath also been purchased, and a house built accordingly there¬ 
upon, near the said new church ; and a district, or division for 
a new parish to the said new church hath been laid out, and 
the bounds and limits thereof ascertained and described by a 
writing. 

The inhabitants of the old parish are next stated to be 
willing and desirous to give the rector of the new parish 
£l,250 which the treasurer to the commissioners is requested 
to receive and apply under the same controul as the £3,000 
before mentioned. 

These sums are specified to form a fund for the rector of 
Bloomsbury’s maintenance, by the purchase of lands, tene¬ 
ments, &c. in fee simple; the rents and produce to be so 
applied annually to him and his successors, and also the sur. 
plus fees, perquisites, Easter offerings, and other dues, and the 
house for his and their habitation. 

A churchyard was also to be purchased by the said com. 
missioners, and they and the vestry were to affix the burial 
fees for the rector, which were to be binding. 


410 


The vaults under the church and vestry rodm, seats and 
pews, were vested in the churchwardens and their successors, 
for the public uses of the said new parish, under the directions 
of the vestry. 

The parish clerk for the time being is declared a member of 
the corporation of the parish, with all its privileges. 

The rights of the rectors of St. Giles not to be intrenched 
upon, and the lecturer to be chosen by the rector and vestry. 

The Act then adverts to the 4th of George I. empowering 
the commissioners to rebuild the church of St. Giles, and to 
afford assistance for the same, amounting to <£8,000, on or 
before the 24th of June, 1730, the same to be vested in thirteen 
trustees therein named, who were to manage and lay out the 
same, the particulars of which were to be given hereafter to 
the said commissioners, &c. 

And in the mean time , and until an effectual division and 
separation of the said parishes can he had and obtained , 
according to the powers and directions given for that purpose , 
by the said act of the tenth year of her late Majesty Queen 
Anne : Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and 
after the 25th day of March, 1731, the churchwardens and 
overseers of the poor, and other parish officers, for the said new 
parish, shall be annually chosen and appointed, at such time 
and times, as such respective churchwardens and overseers of 
the poor, and other officers, are annually chosen and appointed 
for the said parish of St. Giles in the Fields : and all rates for 
the relief of the poor of both the said parishes shall be made 
by the overseers of the poor of both parishes jointly, and 
when confirmed as the law directs, shall be levied and col¬ 
lected by the overseers of the poor of the said parishes re¬ 
spectively upon the inhabitants of each parish, and the money 
so collected shall be accounted for by the said respective 
overseers, and shall be applied and disposed of in such manner 
as if this act had not been made : and the workhouse, or house 
of maintainance for the poor of both parishes, now standing in 
the district of the said old parish, is hereby deemed, declared* 


411 


% 


and shall be taken to be for the joint use and benefit of both 
parishes, and shall be repaired, supported, maintained, and 
managed from time to time, as shall be thought necessary by 
the vestries, and at the joint expense of both parishes, any¬ 
thing herein contained, or any law, usage, or custom to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

14. provides that the rights, titles, and claims of his grace 
Wriothesley, Duke of Bedford, are to be respected as if this 
act had never been made. 

Actions in reference to this act must be commenced within 
three months after the fact committed. 

The expenses and charges of obtaining this act, were to be 
paid by the treasurer of the commissioners for building fifty 
new churches. 

All judges, justices, and others, are enjoined to consider 
this a public act. 


The following Act (the 14th George III. cap. 
62) being that under which the United Parishes 
have been chiefly governed, is inserted at con¬ 
siderable length. 

An Act for the better governing and employing the 
poor , and making and collecting the poor s-rates, 
within the parishes of St. Giles in the Fields , 
and St. George Bloomsbury , in the county of 
Middlesex . 

1. Whereas the poor within the parishes, &c. are very nu¬ 
merous, and are supported at a great expense, and the 
powers for making and collecting the rates for the relief of 
such poor are not sufficient for those purposes : 

And , whereas the poor belonging to the said parishes might 
be better maintained and regulated , and the rates for their 
relief more properly made and collected, if some farther and 



412 


other powers were given for those purposes ; may it therefore 
please your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted 
by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice 
and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons 
in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of 
the same, that such number of substantial householders in the 
said parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George 
Bloomsbury, not exceeding eight for the said parish af St. 
Giles in the Fields, and not exceeding four for the said 
parish of St. George Bloomsbury (who, by any law now in 
being, are liable to serve the office of overseer of the poor,) 
shall be nominated yearly, on some day in Easter week, 
or within one month after Easter, under the hands and seals 
of two or more of his Majesty’s Justices of the peace for the 
county of Middlesex, dwelling in or near the said parishes, and 
the persons to be nominated as aforesaid, together with the 
churchwardens of the said parishes, shall be overseers for the 
year then next ensuing, and until others shall be nominated to, 
and shall have accepted the said office; and shall, within three 
days after suck nomination, and notice thereof, given or left 
at his or their place of abode, take that office and duty upon 
them, upon pain that every such person refusing or neglecting 
so to do, shall forfeit the sum of ten pounds ; and any two 
justices of the peace for the said county, are hereby authorised 
to nominate some other fit person or persons to the said office, 
in place of him or them refusing or neglecting as aforesaid; 
and the person or persons so nominated, in the room of such 
person or persons, shall take such office and duty upon him 
and them, under the like forfeiture of ten pounds for every 
such refusal or neglect, to be recovered in manner herein after 
mentioned; all which said forfeitures shall be paid to the 
treasurer, who shall be appointed to receive the monies*for the 
relief of the poor of the said parishes, and be applied for and 
towards the relief of such poor. 

2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid> 
that the vestrymen of the said parishes, together with the 


413 


said churchwardens and overseers of the poor, are hereby 
authorised and required to assemble and meet together in the 
vestry-room belonging to the said parishes, upon the first 
Tuesday in the month of June in every year, or within twenty- 
one days afterwards, and at any other time or times, as occa¬ 
sion shall require. And they, or the major part of them so 
assembled, shall make a rate or rates, assessment or assess¬ 
ments, for the relief of the poor of the said parishes, upon all 
and every the lands, houses, tenements, buildings, and he¬ 
reditaments, within the said parishes; which said rate or 
rates, &c. shall be paid by the persons inhabiting or occupying 
the said lands, &c. respectively, at such times, and in such 
manner and proportions, as the persons making any such 
rates or assessments shall thereby direct and appoint. 

3. And whereas there are divers houses, tenements, and 
hereditaments within the said parishes which are let in 
separate apartments, or ready furnished, by which means the 
payment of the parochial rates for such houses may be evaded. 
It then goes on to state, that in such cases the landlords or 
proprietors of such occupations shall be liable. Tenants are 
compellable to pay who occupy furnished houses, or unde 
any similar tenure, where the landlord is subject to rates and 
taxes, the same to be deducted afterwards by the tenant from 
the landlord’s rent. 

4. Ambassadors, or other public ministers of foreign courts 
are not liable, but the lessor, landlord, or owners of houses 
so occupied, are compellable to the payment of the rates, to be 
recovered in the usual way. 

5.. Forfeitures incurred by refusing to serve the offices of 
churchwardens and overseers, and rates not paid, n\ay be reco¬ 
vered by distress and sale, with costs. 

6. Vestrymen, in number seven or more, may cause actions 
to be commenced and prosecuted in the name of the collector 
of the rates, or other proper officer, in any of his Majesty’s 
courts of law at Westminster, against all persons from whom 


414 


arrears of rates are due by virtue of this act, or they may 
recover the same in the court held for the recovery of small 
debts, within the county of Middlesex. 

7. Seven or more vestrymen shall and may at their meetings, 
held from time to time, elect and appoint collectors from the 
residenthouseholders from each and for each parish respectively: 
also one or more persons to be treasurer or treasurers, and 
also such other officers and servants as they shall find neces¬ 
sary for the due execution of this act; and shall take such 
security as the said vestrymen shall think proper for the due 
execution of their respective offices; and shall and may remove 
such collectors, treasurers, and officers, or servants, at their 
will and pleasure. 

8. The collectors to be allowed, from the monies they re¬ 
ceive, not more thaa three-pence in the pound. The treasurer 
or treasurers, officers, or servants to be allowed for their ser¬ 
vices such sums as the said vestrymen in their discretion shall 
think proper. 

9. Collectors and treasurers to account at all times when 
required by the vestrymen, or any seven of them, to render 
full, true, and perfect accounts, verified upon their oaths re¬ 
spectively, of all monies by them received and paid by virtue 
of their said office, and shall pay over any money remaining 
in their hands to such person or persons as the said vestrymen, 
or the major part of them present at any meeting shall, by 
writing under their hands, authorize and appoint to receive the 
same. In case of non-compliance on the part of any of the 
said collectors or officers, they shall be committed lawfully to 
the common goal, without bail or mainprize, until he or they 
shall have made a true account on oath, and shall have paid 
such sums as appeared to be remaining in their hands, &c. 

10. Vestrymen may lawfully make rules and regulations for 
disposing of the money that shall be raised and received for 
the relief of the poor of the said parishes, and for the better 
maintenance of them, governing and employing them, as to 
them, or any seven of them, shall appear necessary and expe- 


415 


dient, and may from time repeal or alter any of them in such 
manner as they, or any thirteen or more of them shall think 
proper, all which rules, &c. shall be of the same force and 
effect for the purposes thereby intended, as if the same were 
enacted in the body of this act; provided that such rules, 
orders, and regulations are not repugnant to the 

LAWS OF THIS REALM. 

11., And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that 
no vestryman, churchwarden, or overseer of the poor for the time 
being, or any other person appointed by the said vestrymen 
to any office under or by virtue of this act, shall, during the 
time of such office, provide, furnish, or supply for his or their 
own profit, any goods, materials, or provisions, £lr or towards 
the employment, use, support, or maintenance of the poor in 
the workhouse of the said parishes. 

12. Penalties are set forth on persons who shall buy or 
receive in pawn any clothes or apparel from persons in the 
workhouse. 

13. And be it fuither enacted and declared by the authority 
aforesaid, that the several laws relating to the office of over- 
»eer of the poor, and for the relief and maintenance of the 
poor, shall still continue in force within the said parishes, ex¬ 
cept where the same are declared to be altered by this present 
act. 

14. The expenses of this act to be defrayed out of the first 
monies to be raised by the rates herein before directed to be 
made. 

15. Persons aggrieved may appeal to the Quarter Sessions, 
and it is lawful for the justices there assembled to hear all such 
appeals, and award reasonable costs to the party in whose fa¬ 
vour the same shall be determined. Their order to be final 
and conclusive. 

16. Persons making distress for poor’s rate not be deemed 
trespassers from any defect or want of form in the warrant, or 
from other irregularity, but the person aggrieved by such ir- 


416 


regularity, shall or may recover full satisfaction for the special 
damage sustained, and no more, in an action on the case. 

17. Proceedings not to be quashed for want of form only, 
or be removed by certiorari to any of his majesty's Courts of 
Record at Westminster, or by any other process. 

18. Actions against persons for any thing done in pursuance 
of this act must be commenced within six calender months 
next after the fact committed, and not afterwards, the same to 
be laid and brought in the county of Middlesex. The de¬ 
fendants may plead the general issue, and give this Act and 
the special matter in evidence, at any trial to be had there¬ 
upon. Defendants, should the jury find for them, are to be 
entitled to treble costs, and the same should the plaintiff dis¬ 
continue the action, or become non-suited. 

jl9. This Act to be considered and taken to be a Public 
A(it by all judges, justices, &c. 


A List of the Joint Vestry of the Parishes of St. 
Giles in the Fields and St. George Bloomsbury , 1829. 

ST. GILES. 

Rev. James Endell Tyler, B.D. Rector, 24, Bedford Square. 
Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Best, 29, Bedford Square 

[13 Feb. 1823. 

Hon. Mr. Justice Park, 32, Bedford Square [8 Feb. 1823. 
John Soane, Esq. J3, Lincoln's Inn Fields [11 Feb. 1802. 
William Beckett, Esq. 75, Gower Street [14 Feb. 1805. 
Henry Meux, Esq. 19, Great Russell Street [11 Feb. 1813. 
Lewis G. Dive, Esq. 3, Tavistock Street [10 Feb. 1814. 
William Harrison, Esq. 45, Lincoln's Inn Fields [9 Feb. 1815. 
Henry Burrows, Esq. 20, Gower Street [11 Feb. 1819. 

Thomas Sumpter, Esq. 10, Thornhaugh Street [10 Feb. 1820. 
Richard Latham, Esq. 18, Great Russell St. £10 Feb. 1824. 
Nathaniel Saxon, Esq. 39, Gower Street [16 Feb. 1824. 
James Carden, Esq. 24, Bedford Square [10 Feb. 1825. 
Richard Woodhouse, Esq. 17, Bedford Square [8 Feb. 1827. 


d 



417 


John Shaw, Esq. *28, Gower Street [B Feb. 1827. 

William Oldnall Russel, Esq. 14, Gower Street [8 Feb. 1827. 
Henry Combe, Esq. 2, Caroline Street [14 Feb. 1828. 

C. B. Williams, Esq. 59, Lincoln’s Inn Fields [14 Feb. 1828. 
J. F. Pike, Esq. 30, Bedford Square [14 Feb. 1828. 

James Parkinson, Esq. 4G, Bedford Square [14 Feb. 1828. 
William Keene, Esq. 29, Alfred Place [14 Feb. 1828i 

Joseph Moore, M.D. 9, Lincoln’s Inn Fields [12 Feb. 1829; 
Mr. Samuel Remnant, 15, High Street [18 Dec. 1794 % 

Mr. John Waddell, 25, High Street [13 Feb. 1812. 

Mr. Richard Hilhouse, 116, Great Russell St. [10 Feb. 1814. 
Mr. Joseph Holdsworth, 266, Tottenham Court Road 

[8 Feb. 1816. 

Mr. William Hughes, 247, Holborn [13 Feb. 1817. 

Mr. George Robinson, 2, Great Queen Street [11 Feb. 1819. 
Mr. William Henry Savage, 30, Gt. Queen St. [16 Feb. 1824. 
Mr. Charles Ward, 164, Drury Lane {10 Feb. 1824. 

Mr. Yeeling Underwood, 8, Great Turnstile [10 Feb. 1825. 
Mr. Andrew George Bachhoffner, 69, Monmouth Street 

[9 Feb. 1826. 

Mr. Samuel Page, 232, Holborn [8 Feb. 1827. 

Mr. John Doyle, 229, Holborn [8 Feb. 1827. 

Mr. William Parker, 233, Holborn [12 Feb. 1829. 

Mr. Egerton Cutler, 16, Great Queen Street [12 Feb. 1829. 
Mr. T. G. Hough, 7, Tavistock Street [12 Feb. 1829. 


CHURCHWARDENS. 

Mr. George Rogers, 58, High Street. 

Thomas Wakley, Esq. 35, Bedford Square. 

BLOOMSBURY. 

The Rev. John Lonsdale, B.D. Rectory House 

Right Hon. Lord Tenterden, 28, Russell Sq. [11 Feb. 1819. 

Francis P. Stratford, Esq. Charlotte Street, Bedford Square 

[14 Feb. 1811. 

Bernard Bosanquet, Esq. 12, Montague Place [10 Feb. 1814. 

£ E 


418 


Augustus Warren, Esq. 24, Charlotte Street, Bedford Square 

[9 Feb. 1815. 

John Jortin, Esq. 7, Charlotte Street, Bedford Square 

[12 Feb. 1818. 

James Loch, Esq, Bloomsbury Square [12 Feb. 1818. 

William Rothery, Esq. 1, Vernon Place [12 Feb. 1818. 

Robert Ray, Esq. 10, Montague Place [11 Feb. 1819. 

William Pratt, Esq. 59, Russell Square [10 Feb. 1820. 
John Hall, Esq. 5, Russell Square [14 Feb. 1822. 

John Griffin, Esq. 21, Bedford Place [13 Feb. 1823. 

John Rawlinson, Esq. 38, Russell Square [12 Feb. 1824. 
Samuel Mills, Esq. 20, Russell Square [10 Feb. 1825. 

Thomas Day, Esq. 28, Montague Street [10 Feb. 1825. 
John Baker, Esq. 66, Torrington Square [10 Feb. 1825. 
George Man Burrows, M.D. 9, Montague Street 

[9 Feb. 1826. 

William Groom, Esq. 24, Russell Square [9 Feb. 1826. 

Thomas Gotobed, Esq. 82, Great Russell Street [9 Feb. 1826. 
John Miles, Esq. 25, Southampton Row [9 Feb. 1826. 

William Flower, Esq. 7, Upper Bedford Place [8 Feb. 1827. 
Henry Ellis, Esq. British Museum [14 Feb. 1828. 

Samuel Brown, Esq. 24, Bloomsbury Square [14 Feb. 1828. 
Bury Hutchinson, Esq. 52, Russell Square [12 Feb. 1829. 
Mr. James Hall, 38, Southampton Row [30 Dec. 1795. 
Mr. John Meabry, 1, Broad Street [9 Feb. 1815. 

Mr. Thomas Harris, 52, Great Russell Street [12 Feb. 1818. 
Mr. Henry Langley, 3, Charlotte Street, Bedford Square 


[11 Feb. 1819. 

Mr. Luke G. Hansard, 10, Bedford Square [8 Feb. 1821. 
Mr. Francis Keysell, 7, Broad Street [13 Feb. 1823. 

Mr. Nicholas Winsland, 44, Great Russell St. [12 Feb. 1824. 
Mr. John William Willis, 138, High Holborn [12 Feb. 1824. 
Mr. James Hansard, 7, Southampton Street [10 Feb. 1825. 
Mr. James Donaldson, 8, Bloomsbury Square [10 Feb. 1825. 
Mr. James Holmes, 12, Montague Street [9 Feb. 1826. 
Mr. James Davies, 8, Plumtree Street [8 Feb. 1827. 

Mr, W. Edwards Caldecot, 53,Great Russell St. [19. Feb. 1829. 


419 


CHURCHWARDENS. 
tVfr. Thomas Brown, 167, High Holborn. 

Mr. William Mills, 120, Holborn. 

Select Vestries . 

The general odium into which these irresponsible juntos 
have fallen since the aggrieved parishioners have viewed them 
with inquisitive jealousy cannot be better illustrated than by 
noticing some of the abuses connected with them in several 
districts of the metropolis, as announced in the public papers. 

“ St. Andrew's, Holborn, May, J828.— A meeting 
of the parishioners took place yesterday, when the report of 
the committee appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the 
parish was received. It stated that Dr. Lushington had given 
it as his opinion that all charges for dinners and refreshments 
as connected with parochial affairs are illegal. It then alluded 
to the charges made by Mr. Hicks, who, in his double capacity 
of sexton and grave-digger, received legal dues amounting to 
£250, together with various sums for dressing the pulpit, 
digging graves for the poor, employing men to attend on a 
Sunday, &c. &c. making an additional rent of nearly «£T00, 
out of which he had to pay <£30 to Mrs. Perrey, the late sex¬ 
ton's wife. Among the items embodied in the latter sum was 
£26 for washing surplices, being £19 10s. more than was 
paid at the present moment by the parish of St. Sepulchre. 
There was also a charge of £9 for dog’s meat, while the com¬ 
mittee had only been able to ascertain that not one shilling had 
been paid on account of such provender. The committee recom¬ 
mended the discontinuance of all parish dinners, the separation 
of the offices of sexton and grave-digger, and the curtailment of 
all extra fees to Mr. Hicks ; and observed, that the various cir¬ 
cumstances which they had to complain of were caused by the 
officers of the parish being appointed by the Select Vestry .” 

“ Christchurch, Spitalfields. —An item was charged 
in the parish account of £80 (1820 for carving and gilding 
the legs of the communion table, and a certain other sum was 
E E 2 


420 


charged for a cloth to cover them, so that the parishioners wefe 
prevented from viewing the elegant work which was paid for 
out of their own pockets. There was another item for re¬ 
pairing hinges amounting to £50” 

St. George, Hanover Square. —The following case 
of oppression is taken from the Examiner, September 14th, 
1828.—“ For nearly half a century I have lived and paid 
parochial rates in the above parish; but being a widow, the 
expense of bringing up a large family necessitates me to let a 
part of the house I occupy, which is situated in the out-ward ; 
the frontage, however, being without any pavement, and the 
traffic past it daily increasing, I found it next to impossible to 
procure lodgers who would brave the mud and mire accumu¬ 
lated during the winter months. I, in consequence, applied to 
those in authority in the parish to pave the front, but without 
effect; and, in order to remedy the increasing nuisance, I had 
it paved at my own expense. But judge my surprise, when 
the very next time the collector came round, I was for the 
first time charged with a paving rate! Well knowing that 
the parish had not laid down any pavement, even within half 
a mile of my residence —at least, half a mile by measure¬ 
ment—I thought it a mistake, and caused inquiry to be made 
at the vestry on the subject; but the answer was, that it was 
quite contrary to vestry etiquette to listen to any complaints, 
until all demands (just or unjust) are complied with by the 
unfortunate applicant. The long period I had been a pa¬ 
rishioner, and my never having applied to the vestry before, 
was pleaded as a reason why they should hear my appeal: 
but the gentlemen (?) present ridiculed this; and although all 
other rates were tendered, nothing but the whole would be 
received. 

Considering that a voluntary compliance with this gross 
fraud (for I think it nothing better) would be establishing 
their right to further extortion, I refused payment, and the 
consequence was an execution on my goods! I now consi¬ 
dered that I had, at least, established my right to be heard 


421 


at the vestry ; but no such thing—they had got the money— 
aud the vestry-clerk, with an air of triumph and self-importance, 
refused to set the appeal down for hearing, alleging that it had 
already been heard. So that I am now left at the full liberty 
to go to law with the parish for redress. This, I apprehend, 
never could have happened but in a vestry self elected, and 
irresponsible for their actions, however nefarious; but as I 
understand there are several respectable and even titled names 
to be found in the list, I do trust they will disavow all parti¬ 
cipation in a transaction so disgraceful, and afford me justice 
(not law ) at as cheap a rate as it is to be had.” 

St. Giles, Cripplegate. —“ The resistance to the 
Select Vestry System, now so generally prevalent, has been 
already productive of the most beneficial results. A striking 
example to other parishes and ministers has just been afforded 
in that of St. Giles, Cripplegate. The office of evening lec¬ 
turer having become vacant, there were no less than ten can¬ 
didates for the situation. A very sensible address from a 
parishioner was suddenly sent round, recommending that an 
eleventh should be put in nomination, and that this should be 
their vicar himself! There were two special grounds set 
forth-—1st. “ That if the duties of the lectureship be neces¬ 
sary at all, it is incumbent on the vicar to fulfil them. At the 
time of his ordination he declared that he * thought in his 
heart he was fully called to the priesthood he professed to 
‘ receive the Holy Ghostand solemnly engaged to be 
‘ diligent in prayers and in reading of the Holy Scriptures, 
laying aside the study of the world and the flesh.* Now the 
duties of the lectureship either are necessary or they are not. 
If they are not, we cannot do without an evening lecturer, 
the appointment of whom is an indirect reproach on our vicar/* 
Secondly, That of economy ; and a computation was made that 
the total annual amount of the vicar’s emoluments from l fie 
parish was £2,300. “ For this sum” (continued the address) 

“ he, either by himself or deputy, reads prayers and preaches* 
(that is, reads) a sermon of the length of half an hour every 


422 


Sunday, and once on certain holydays, as they are called— 
say that he reads sixty such services aud sermons in the year, 
and that he is employed each time an hour and a half, he is 
then, for the sum of £2,300. employed throughout the year, 
ninety hours, or three whole days and three quarters of ano¬ 
ther day ; and he receives for each service and sermon of one 
hour and a half long, the sum of <£38. 6s. 8d. sterling, being 
about the value of eight quartern loaves for every minute of 
time he is engaged. Those who regularly hear the said ser¬ 
mons will be best enabled to judge whether or not they are 
worth the money .” The address was also accompanied by an 
intimation that by law, according to the article *' Offerings’* 
in Burn's Ecclesiastical Law , no greater sum could be exacted 
than 2d. per head as Easter offerings, though a much larger 
sum was generally paid, and that further payments were per¬ 
fectly voluntary. Other addresses were, it is said, in readu 
ness, and a canvass in preparation to support this nomination, 
when intelligence was received that the vicar had very wisely 
agreed to allow a sum for a lecturer, and moreover that he 
should be chosen by the parishioners. This of course has 
given the greatest satisfaction.” ( November 1 6th, 1826.) 

St. Giles in the. Fields and St. George 
Bloomsbury, —It is well known that the action, Rogers 
versus Tyler, had for its object the establishing the right of 
the parishioners to sit in vestry; and when the order was ob¬ 
tained to enable the plaintiff to examine the vestry minutes, 
many discoveries were made and published, not much to the 
credit of the “ Select.” The following is copied from the 
address of the committee to the parishioners, June, 1828— 
“ The last vestry clerk was a defaulter to a very large amount, 
without one shilling security having been taken for the money 
with which he was improperly entrusted, and the whole trans¬ 
action concealed by the Select, whose pretended abstract of 
accounts does not make the least allusion to the great losses 
thereby entailed upon the parishes.” 


423 


ft The cash accounts during the time o.f the previous vestry 
clerk are in such a state, that they cannot be audited, or even 
understood. The numerous additions of receipts and dis¬ 
bursements of the poor rates for upwards of two years, amount¬ 
ing to ninety thousand pounds, are still in pencil marks.! ! 

“ Of three-quarters of a year’s receipts and disbursements, 
there is not a vestige of an account produced !! 

“ To carry on the defence to the action above alluded to, 
£200 were abstracted from the funds raised for the support of 
the poor, and thus stimulated, the vestry attorney put in by 
singular industry no less than fifteen special pleas, covering 
the surface of one hundred and seventy-five folios ! These 
the Court of King’s Bench on the 25th November, 1828, re¬ 
duced to less than half, whereby the “ Select” incurred per¬ 
sonally the needless and vexatious expense to which they re¬ 
sorted for obvious purposes.” 

St. James, Westminster. —Mr. Hobhouse in his mo¬ 
tion, 28th April, 1829, for the appointment of a committee to 
inquire into the abuses of Select Vestries, which was agreed 
to after some opposition by Mr. Peel, made the following 
remarks :— 

“ That during ten years the guardians of the poor drew up 
their accounts in one room, and audited them themselves in 
another! Also, that accounts were furnished sufficient not 
only to cover the table, but to fill up the hollow under it, 
from whence, however, very little satisfaction could be derived, 
and it was of little use to appeal to the magistrates, who were 
either vestrymen themselves, or intimate with that body.” 

At a meeting of the parishioners at Cauty’s rooms, 24th 
Dec. 1828, Mr. Fores, the chairman, stated that ^12 10s. 
had been charged the parish for an accountant’s teaching the 
clerk of the workhouse how to keep his books ! The visiting 
the infant poor at Wimbledon was charged in 1817 about ,£30, 
but in 1827 the amount was «£85 ! He and two of his friends 
had paid the very same visit, and the cost had been no more 
than 7s. 6d. «£100 per annum was paid to the assistant 


424 


preacher twice over, owing to an error in the acts of parlia¬ 
ment. Among other abuses, there was a sum of .£24,000 
which had not been credited in the accounts, and of this the 
vestry had been brought to admit .£15,000, so that sum had 
been already saved to the parish by the exertions of the com¬ 
mittee appointed by the parishioners, &c. 

St. Martin’s in the Fields. —We have already al¬ 
luded to some extraordinary decisions in reference to this pa¬ 
rish, (vide page 281, fyc.) the vestry of which attracted the 
notice of the parishioners and legislature as early as 1741. 
Daniel De Foe wrote a pamphlet about 1720, entitled ** Pa¬ 
rochial Tyranny, or the Housekeeper’s Complaint against the 
Exactions, &c. of Select Vestries,” in which he published 
a bill of expenses of the vestry of this parish in 1713, which 
contains the following items:— 

£. s. d. 

“ 1713. Spent at many meetings on visitations ... 65 0 4 

Ditto at taverns with ministers, justices. 


overseers, &c. 72 19 7 

To clerks paid . 10 0 0 

Ditto for examining poor.170 16 10 

Boards for grave-digger .. 4 2 0 

Sacrament bread and wine (no bill) . 88 10 0 

Paid towards a robbery !!.. 21 14 0 

Spent for dinner at Mulberry Gardens ... 49 13 4 

Ditto going to Hicks’s Hall about bastard 

children. 2 7 0 

£485 3 1 


<£. s. d. 

r 1818. The balance charged this parish for church¬ 


wardens’ dinner was. 56 15 0 

1819. It was. 44 10 0 

1823. Ditto.. 30 15 6 

1826. Ditto reduced to . 14 0 0 


which was handed over to Mr. Cuff out of the 
parish funds 
















425 


1827. The amount paid was.. 27 2 6 

The sum of ,£48. 12s. 9d. was paid to Messrs. Wood and 
Co. for Archdeacon Pott’s Sermon on the death of Queen 
Charlotte. It appears it did not sell, and the parish was 
robbed to pay the loss. 

6th January, 1813. The sum of £5. was charged and paid 
for a petition of the vestry against the Catholics,—a most im¬ 
pudent act; for, although they had a just right to petition if 
they pleased, they had none to defraud the parish to defray 
the expense. 

St. Mary-la-Bonne. —“ The committee on the bill to 
reform the close Select Vestry of this parish met again yes¬ 
terday. Sir Thomas Baring was chairman of the committee^ 
among whom we observed Mr. Hobhouse, Colonel Freemantle, 
Messrs. Wood and Waithman, Mr. Bernal, and several other 
members, together with Mr. Ross, Mr. G. Smith, now vestry¬ 
man, and also Colonel Graham, formerly a vestryman, and 
then of the house of Fauntleroy and Co. of Berners Street. 

Among other things, the building of a chapel, and afterwards 
taking a great part of it down to couvert it into a church, at 
a great and wasteful expense, was clearly proved. So was 
the paying of the late venerable President of the Royal Aca¬ 
demy ,£800 for a design for a window, which he executed as 
a transparency, the first perhaps he ever thought of painting 
in his life, and the placing of it as a centre-piece for the organ I 
Also the payment of £300 for a fine group of figures by 
Rossi, for the pediment of the chapel, which were never used, 
and are now lying somewhere about the stone yard of the 
parish. 

The best joke was, they had taken a fine gold figure of an 
angel playing on a lyre which had been placed at the top of 
the organ (and as nobody could tell what had become of it, 
the counsel for the vestry said it had gone to the devil), and 
had placed in lieu of it, under the auspices of the present 
Reverend incumbent, a crown on a cushiou, supported by a 
mitre on either side. 



426 


Great interest was excited by the following detail of a grand 
perambulatory dinner which was laid before the committee :— 


£. s. d. 

Temporary cellars and coach hire .. 14 0 6 

Ale and Porter. 72 12 6 

Hams. 20 7 6 

Wine, 39 dozen (468 bottles) . 121 I 0 

Meat, 164| stone, at Is. per lb. 65 16 0 

Grocery, cheese, eggs, &c. .. 16 12 5 

Vegetables and lemons. 22 14 0 

Ribband for cockades . 23 16 3 

Table linen . 4 8 11 

Brass cocks and cork screws, with brushes, &c. 7 17 6 

Earthenware. 59 11 5 

Man cook and assistants .. 5 5 0 

Female assistants and cabbage nets. 6 10 10 

Wands and gilding. 15 0 

Penny pieces . 2 2 0 

Waiters . BOO 


<£452 0 10 


Only a few of these items, amounting to <£85 odd, appeared 
in the book under the name of perambulation. All the rest 
were disguised, and entered as provisions for the poor, clothing 
for the poor, furniture, &c. one article charged to the account 
of repairing and cleansing the streets, a very small part being 
for making good damage done to fences, &c. during the day. 

The upholsterer’s bill for dressing the church amounted to 
the enormous sum of <£2150. 

It seems they had two suits, one for ordinary and another 
for extraordinary occasions, one of cloth and silk lace, the 
other of crimson silk Genoa velvet and gold lace. 


The dresses for the pulpit cost. £320 

Ditto for reading desk..... 139 

And for the clerks .. 99 


<£558 























427 


Dressing the communion table. 260 

Chairs and kneeling stools . 260 

Seven hassocks. 108 

Curtains for the organ gallery . 93 

Churchwardens pews. 166 


,£887 

Among other statements made to the House of Commons, 
the following may be mentioned :— 

4 The accounts are rendered so intricate, which the vestry 
audit, that for the year 1825 a surplus appeared in the ac¬ 
count in favour of the parish of <£26,000, when in fact there 
was a deficiency of <£21,000, leaving a sum of nearly 
£47,000 unaccounted for ! and next year they borrowed of 
their treasurer, without law, as temporary loans £64,000. 

A few years ago, when money was to be had at 3J and 4 
per cent, the vestry refused to obtain it at that rate, and 
thereby pay off a large debt created at a higher interest, be¬ 
cause the money had been borrowed mostly of vestrymen. 

They were in debt nearly .£500,000 when the bill to 
regulate them went to parliament, and they refused to render 
any account of the receipts and expenditure, till Alderman 
Wood obtained an order of the house as follows 

£. s. d. 

Amount of rales collected during 9 past 

years... 1,442,619 19 6J 


Expense of collecting 6d. in the pound, 

(the king pays 3d.). 20,257 8 4 

Gratuities to officers and clerks, exclusive 

of salaries. 138,477 18 11J 

Provisions for workhouse. 75,593 19 3J 

Wine for ditto .. 2,854 3 8 

Spirits for ditto. ^12 15 6 

Medicine for ditto. 6,667 9 3 

Medical herbs for ditto. ^89 ® ^ 

Clothes for one year for poor . 3,268 6 8 

















428 


Raw material for ditto, each succeeding 

year (average)..... i.... 2,800 0 0 

Money for lunatics . 14,831 7 6 

Casual Poor . 137,784 19 7 

Money paid for bastard children. 32,891 17 5£ 

Besides the current expenses, it appears that the parish is 
saddled with a large annuity interest upon bonds for paving, 
church, and other rates amounting to £136,212.” 

(See Examiner , May 4th, 1828, and February 1 st, 1829A 

St. Paul’s, Covent Garden. —“ 1817. The parish paid 
Bourdillion, son of a vestryman, £115 8s. for burying the 
rector. 

1828. The sum of £80 was taken off the account charged 
by Roach, the former vestry clerk, although he was warmly 
supported by Sir R. Birnie and Mr. Halls. 

The feast of eighteen of the parishioners, with the rector 
at their head, which took place at Norwood in 1826 is well 
known :—“ The auditors appointed by the non-select parish¬ 
ioners of St. Paul’s Covent Garden, to audit the accounts of 
their defunct Select Vestry, had scarcely commenced their 
labours yesterday, when they stumbled on the following 
entry:— 

£. s. d. 

* L826, August 1st. Paid chaise-hire, turnpikes, 
refreshments, and other expenses on visiting 

the children at nurse’... 34 12 6 

Now the auditors, not being sufficiently select to compre¬ 
hend how such a sum could be necessary for visiting a few 
pauper children at Norwood, called upon the vestry clerk, 
(Roach) for an explanation thereof, and he forthwith fur¬ 
nished them with a voucher, as follows :— 

£. s. d. 


* Dinner and dessert for eighteen gentlemen . 9 9 0 

Lemon . 0 10 

Ten bottles of Bucellas . 3 0 0 

Two bottles of Sherry,,,,.... 0 12 0 











429 


£. &. d. 

Punch . 0 12 0 

Soda ........ 0 16 0 

Four bottles of Champagne. 2 8 0 

Twelve bottles of Port. 3 12 0 

Five bottles of Sauterne..-... 2 0 0 

Ice for wine ...,... 0 2 0 

Rose water / .. 0 2 0 

Glass. 0 5 6 

Noyeau... 0 18 0 

Tea and coffee ... 1 7 0 

Three servant’s dinners... 0 7 6 

Waiters..... 090 

Coach-hire and turnpikes ... 811 6 


Grand total. <£34 12 6 


The rose water seems to have been had for the purpose of 
bathing the nasal appendage'of a worthy woollen-draper of 
the party, whose olfactory nerves are somewhat too sensitive 
for pauper visitations, and the glass was probably broken by 
some gentlemen too zealously knocking down * Success to the 
Select Vestry System !’ What the non-select parishioners may 
say to this expenditure of <£35 in a five-mile visit to a few 
pauper bantlings, remains to be seen; but surely, no man who 
entertains a sufficient respect for his own stomach, can blame 
the ex-Select Vestry for attempting to smuggle a bill through 
parliament, which would have secured them the full enjoyment 
of a system so replete with creature comforts .”—Morning 
Herald , March, 1828. 

St. Pancras. —The following is stated to be the cost of 


St. Pancras New Church 

£. s. d. 

Paid for ground on which it stands . 6,695 0 0 

Ditto contractor, on account of contract. 45,647 0 1 

Ditto for extras . 13,909 3 6 

Ditto for Terra Cotta work. 6,248 19 10 























430 


Architect’s commission, clerk of works, and 

incidents .. 4,307 0 7 

Warming and ventilating church. 391 11 0 

Organ ..*. 1,087 0 0 

Scagliola work and gilding. 897 8 2 

Clock, three bells, and furniture . 2,742 5 0 

Communion plate, bibles, prayer-books, and 

consecration. 1,004 10 7 

Laying-out and planting ground. 251 0 0 

Extra works, security given . 3,000 0 0 


*£86,280 18 9 

Deduct remission of duties. 3,579 11 1 


Grand total of this job... £82,701 7 8 

" These are some of the consequences of worshipping and 
adoring God at the public charge.” 

(See Morniiig Herald , September , 1828.) 


Rogers v. Tyler, Clerk . 

An intimation has already been given in the 
Preface why I abandoned the intention of pub¬ 
lishing the details of this important Trial, and 
other matter has been substituted. A short 
notice of it seems, however, indispensable 
in a work intended to form a record of events 
for the future guidance and use of the parish¬ 
ioners, which I here insert:— 

21st July 1829. (Adjourned Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middle- 
dlesex after Trinity Term, before Mr. Justice James Parke, 
and Special Juries.) 
















431 


Counsel for the Plaintiff— 

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Richards. 

Counsel for the Defendant — 

The Attorney General Sir James Scarlett, Mr. Patteson, 
and Mr. Thesiger. 

The List of the Jury : 

David Henderson, St. John’s Wood ; 

John Strutt, Manor Place, Chelsea ; 

Thomas Boutiffee Shelton, Lisson Grove South ; 

Joseph Jellicoe, Upper Wimpole Street; 

Joseph Shappe, Dean Street, Soho ; 

Alexander Still, Leicester Place; 

William Stretton, Lisle Street; 

George Stephenson, Oxford Street; 

Charles Tett, Dean Street, Soho; 

Thomas Thornton, Ditto ; 

George Taylor, Litchfield Street; 

Evan Thomas, Macclesfield Street. 

This was an action formally brought to recover damages of 
the defendant. The Rev. James Endell Tyler, B.D. for an 
alleged assault committed by him upon the plaintiff, Mr. 
George Rogers, in the Vestry-room of the parish of St. Giles 
in the Fields, on the 4th of June 1828, but substantially to 
try the question of the legality of a Select Vestry in that 
parish. 

Lord Tenlerden, being himself one of the select vestry of 
St. George Bloomsbury, which by act of parliament is incor¬ 
porated with St. Giles, declined trying the cause; his place 
was therefore occupied by Mr. Justice James Parke. 

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Richards appeared for 
the plaintiff; the Attorney General (Sir James Scarlett) Mr. 
Patteson, and Mr. Thesiger were engaged for the defendant. 

Mr. Richards opened the pleadings. George Rogers was 
the plaintiff*, and James Endell Tyler, clerk, the defendant. 


432 


The declaration alleged, that the defendant had assaulted the 
plaintiff in the vestry-room of the parish of St. Giles in the 
Fields, and had turned him out of that room. The defendant 
pleaded not guilty, and also a justification, on the ground that 
the plaintiff had no right to be present; and that when desired 
to retire he refused, and that then the defendant turned him 
out. Also, that there existed a select vestry, of which the 
plaintiff was not a member. There were also pleas founded on 
the separation of the parish of St. George Bloomsbury from 
that of St. Giles in the Fields, in the reign of Queen Anne; 
and their union, as far as concerned the maintenance of the 
poor, in the reign of his late Majesty: but they were not con¬ 
sidered by the plaintiff's leading counsel as material. The 
plaintiff replied, that the defendant had committed the assault 
of his own wrong. 

The trial was continued, by adjournment, till ten minutes 
past six on the following day (July 22nd,) when the Jury 
retired, and, after an absence of an hour and a quarter, re¬ 
turned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 40s. 

The case towards the conclusion excited considerable inte¬ 
rest, and on the announcement of a general verdict for the 
plaintiff, the majority of the auditors expressed their feelings 
of satisfaction in a manner which is usually considered inde¬ 
corous in a Court of Justice. 

Attorney for the Plaintiff — 

Mr. Eldred, Southampton Street, Bloomsbury Square. 

Attorney for the Defendant — 

Mr. Turner, Bloomsbury Square. 

On the 9th November, Sir James Scarlett moved the Court 
of King's Bench for a new trial, when a rule nisi was granted. 



INDEX. 



Page 

Alms-Houses, history of, since 1656, and misapplication of their 


funds, &c. .. ... 241—259 

Aggas, his plan of London, 1560, noticed. 40— 41 

Adulation and superstition of the clergy . 103,4,5— 8 

Ansell, his account of parish books .305—306 

Audit Committee, blunders of censured .........321—326 

Assessments, inequality of investigated, and erroneous admission 

of “ Refutation,” &c...359—361 

Acts of Parliament applicable to Joint Parishes, abstracts of, &c. 396 
Apostles washed off the organ-loft .. 108 


Burton St. Lazar Hospital, its dissolution & final sale in 1828...15— 21 


Bricks, introduced by the Earl of Arundel . 47 

Buildings, proclamations to restrain.42,46— 48 

->■- progress of, till Interregnum .. 48 

— — new ones, ordered to be pulled down . 54 

-—— extension of, in St. Giles’s, to VI. of Anne.58— 62 

- - accumulation of, in Bloomsbury .142—146 

Burton, James, his vast enterprise & extraordinary abstract 143—148 

Babinglon, his plot, and execution in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields . 55 

Burial Ground, for the sole use of the poor, purchased.122 

-purchase of, at St. Pancras .123 

-— — ■ of St. Giles’s, Pennant’s disgusting account of ...123 

-of Bloomsbury, and remarkable trial.155—160 

Britton, his dimensions of Metropolitan Squares .171 

Baltimore House, and serious charge against Lord Baltimore 173 —174 

Benefactors to St. Giles’s second church, 1625 .99 —101 

Bloomsbury, its derivation, manor, and boundaries . 134 —138 

-formed into a separate parish, 1724 ... 150 

-its church, built by Hawksmore .1730—ibid. 

-—■— church criticised by Ralph and Walpole .152—153 


F F 



































INDEX. 


Pago 

Bloomsbury, rector’s list of, shortly noticed .154 

-church, expensive repairs to ditto .347—349 

-vestry, appointed under 10th. of Anne .154 

-new streets, &c. enumerated .180—181 

■ *i —- Dispensary, notice of . 265 

-Square, and criticisms by Ralph ..138—139 

-Market, Maitland and Strype’s aceount of.139 

Baynbrigge’s, bequests to St. Gilgs’spoor.266 

Biographical sketches of residents, &c.365—395 

-ditto of charitable donors.392 

Bedford House, in 1801 .... 176 

-demolition of, in 1802 .386 

-Dukes of, enumerated . 379 

--John. Fourth Duke, his splendid gift....161 

British Museum, instituted 1759 .16 2 

Its collections, & a cursory notice of its future improvements, &c. 162 

Burgoyne Montague, his census of Irish Poor, &c.. ...362 

Brunswick Square, short notice of .179 


Cobham Lord, persecution of, and cruel death .26—30 

Cottages in Birchin Lane, 1372 .38 

College of Surgeons in Lincoln’s-Jnn Fields .170 

Churchwardens, their origin and duties .222—224 

-election vested in parishioners of St. Giles by 

legal decision, 1670. t. .225 

-memorable election of, in 1829 .358 

Charity Schools in Museum Street, accounts of, Bedford Chapel, 

Ditto George Street. &c. &c.264—265 

Cromwell, Oliver, his donation to St. Giles’s poor...„...197 


...ks.,., .. • • — ' v - ** Jf'rvi 

Drury Lane, its country blacksmith’s shop ...38 

—=—-— derivation of, and ancient state.45 

- its present slate contrasted.58 

Doomsday Book of William I. scarcely notices London, aud re- 

marks upon .. 

Doomesday Book, a parish record.95—96 

- ' ■ - —-lost, and advertized for in 1828, and found ..98 

Duchess of Duddelye, her munificence to St. Giles’s Church ......100 


Earle, his defalcations, &c. 


303,4—332—334 


Freeman, his prophetical epigrams .183 

Foreigners, influx of, in 1580, and 1697.43—60 

Fielding and Hogarth, on the depravity of St. Giles’s, 1749, ... 201—202 
Faithorn’s Plan of London in 1658 ....... 51 





















































INDfiX. 


Graunt, Captain, his remarks on London, 1661 

Gwynne, Nell, born in St. Giles’s Parish.. 

Griggs, Mrs. her affection for cats . 

Gallows of St. Giles, and remarkable custom .. 

Harley, Sir Robert, his extreme zeal against images and crosses,..109 


Hospital of St. Giles, for lepers, founded in 1117 . 6 

-site of, dedication, &c...7 —9 

- donations to, charters, &c.13—15 

- dissensions of its inmates, and decline ..15—17 

- dissolution of, and grant to Lord Lisle, 1545 ...21—23 

- devolves afterwards to Sir Wymond Carew .22—25 

- its capital mansion, site of, &c.ibid. 

- its estates, lay in 63 parishes and places.88 

- church, the resort of the inhabitants.89 

- its high altar, and other particulars..~....91 

- repairs to ditto, 1617, when parochial .....ibid. 

- ordered to be pulled down in 1623 .ibid. 

Hey wood, particulars of his ceremonies, and complaints against...105. 
Housling people, signification of . .........43 

Infant Poor, neglect of, in 1810, as stated by Mr. Thiselton .288 

-Heston, establishment for, in 1827 .. 

Irish Poor in St. Giles’s first mentioned, 1640 .......194 

-expense of annually .... 

Items of parochial expenditure, during seven years.......354—366 

Kingsgate Street, noticed in Pepy’s Diary..;....140 

Leprosy defined, and some account of.4—6 

London, its unseemly aspect anciently ....40 

Lighting and cleansing streets first adopted .57 

Lying-in Hospital in Brownlow Street .265 

Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields, its Square, 3fc.50—5 

-—— Walpole’s sarcasm upon.5* 

Laud, Bishop, his superstitious ceremonies, 1630 ..103—104 

Montague House, Evelyn’s account of, 1676, burnt down in 1686 ...161 

Montague House, Lady Russell’s account of ditto.284 

Mandate and parochial answer to ditto.278—284, 

Mary-la-bonne, black forest .39 

Manwayring’s obnoxious sermons in St. Giles’s Church .102 

Morris and Chandler oppose Vestry, 1681 .287—288 

Monuments, two remarkable .123—124 


Page 
..52 

.59 

.183 

....9—10 






















































INDEX. 


Page 

Overseers first appointed by act 43rd. of Elizabeth r .. 22 G 

-their duties, how performed in joint parishes.307 

Pestilence, destroys 50,000 in London .17—18 

Parish, defined by Jacob, .. 8 

Paving of Holborn, &c. 1417 and 1542.38 

Population of Si. Giles’s in 1550, &c.100 

- of united parishes.186—189 

Parish assessment, 1623, &c.97 

Paul, Peter, and Barnabas, turned out of church ...108 

Parish entries, curious extracts ......196—280 

Pennington unsaints the churches .109 

Parsonage-house of St. Giles’s given by Duchess of Dudley, 1646...124 

Pound and Cage, where formerly situate .125 

Plague of 1665, originated in St. Giles’s, particulars of.126—132 

Petty, Sir Wm. on the extension of London .182 

Pauperism and mendicity, early notice of .191—194 

Pavement Chalkers, and other mendicants.209—210 

Poor Laws, observations upon .213—220 

-number, and expenses of, from 1642 to 1677 .320 

Poor’s receipts and expenditure, from 1776 to 1815.220 

Poor, expense of, in 1725, .£ 4,200 ..236 

■■■ ■ shameful mode of relief of, exemplified.307—308 

Parochial and charitable estates, stated .260—261 

- -— abuses, and disparity of assessments .3i3—320 

Prescription, and legal decisions thereon .272—276 

Parton,his defence of the vestry discussed . 282—289 

Prince’s Square, smallest in the world .55 

Parishes of St. Giles and Bloomsbury, reasons for separating...362—364 
Places of worship in united parishes .183—186 

Queen Street Great, mansions of nobility there .57—58 

Restoration, and replacing the King’s Arms... 

Russell Square, its extent, &c.171 

—-retrospections thereon . 176—177 

Riots of 1780 noticed, in connection with Bloomsbury Square .178 

“Refutation of charges against the vestry,” commented upon 

268, 305, 350, . 353—359 

Rogers and Thiselton, their remarks on assessments.,...317—318 

Russell Institution, described .....168—170 

Resurrection Gate-erected, particulars of, 1687 .. 122 

Revolution of 1688, concocted in Bloomsbury...389 












































INDEX 


Page 

Seven Dials, formerly Cock and Pye Fields .....61 

St. Giles, a Grecian saint, Butler’s account of .36 

St. Giles’s manor described..1 

-village, first mention of .*.56 

-suburb village, &c.... 32—35 

- antique cross in Henry Ill’s, reign. .38 

-civic hunt, in 1502 .40 

-encrease of, and progress.42—44 

- contains the largest and smallest squares in the world.55 

-- early inns, account of ...63—66 

-ancient six divisions...68—81 

-first institution as a parish, 1547 . 82 

- village so called in ancient deeds . 83 

- parish not mentioned in Doomesday Book, 1066 . 82 

-in the valor of Pope Nicholas, 1291 84 

-in the nona rolls, 1341.84 


in any of the hospital charters 


down to Edward III...... 84 

--- in the confirmatory Bull of Pope 

Alexander, in reign of Henry III.. 88 

——-- so termed, but seven times out of 102 grants and 

obits............88 

--new church, consecrated by Bishop Laud.103—104 

—- early repairs and decay .. 111—115 

-- church, application to parliament to re-build, and 

-protest against . 115 

__present church erected, 1733, and criticisms upon, by 


Balph . 117 

- rectors’ list of, during 282 years... 119 

- church-yard, land given to poor .120—122 

- manor purchased by trustees of Lord Southampton, 1617...135 

-— church, reparations done to.348 

Suburbs, early state of, according to Pennant and others . ...3—32 

St. Mary- la-bonne, origin of..38 

Sexton, his singular tenure in I67u .122 

Statue of Francis Duke of Bedford, Russell Square .175—176 

- of the Right Hon. James Fox .177 

Sidesmen, their office and duties.226 

Shelton’s School, founded in 1668, history of, and mal-appropria- 
tion of its funds, &c.251—259 


Stevenson’s extraordinary evidence on mendicity in St. Giles’s 202 —212 


Statue of George I. epigram upon 


153 


Traditional story of “ the forty footsteps” .... 176 

Turnstiles, books anciently printed there, &c. 1637 .56 
































































INDEX. 


Pa ge 

Tolls, the first grant of, in St. Giles's ......30 

Tottenhall, an ancient mansion in St. Giles’s.37—66 

Tyburn, village of, a place of execution, &c.10—11 

Tresilian, Judge, barbarous treatment of at Tyburn.ibid. 

Torrington Square described .179 

Thanet House, where formerly situated.137 

Trial, Rogers ver. Tyler, concisely adverted to.43D 

Vestry, definition of, by Shaw, Burn, 4fc. 267—271 

-:— legal decisions upon.274—276 

-origin of St. Giles’s, 1617 ..276 

-open, one for building second church, 1623 .96—277 

- select, list of, in 1620, and at other periods ......277—281 

-Parton’s fallacious account of, discussed .272 

-regulations against blasphemy, &c.284—286 

-— clerks, a list of, and short account of .228—230 

- of Bloomsbury, its first institution, &c.290 

-- disputes of with that of Si. Giles ..290—295 

- unites with ditto after 40 years variance .295 

-joint, obtain the act 14th George III. and other matters 

relative thereto, to discussed .296—401 

-formidable opposition toin 1827, decision against, 1829 267—301 

-impolicy of electing judges and others . 355 

- illegal appropriation of the poor’s funds ..357 

- arguments for an elective one. 359 

- doings in several metropolitan parishes]. ib. 

Wickliffe’s remarkable tenets ........26 

Workhouse, a general one, for various parishes, 1649 .....230—232 

--one for labour, first instituted in St. Giles’s .232 

- present one, account of, founded 1724 .234 


% 

•dFiwifJ. 

. 


Marshall, Printer, Kenton Street, Brunswick Square. 




























































,\ o 

^ o v 1 8 k b 


y n . * CS S ** ! c* A 

0 * x a n c V. * ** s aS * v - 1 * * 




0 v X 


A*' v 



N a N C ^ O, 

0 > C u Y OA* 

» ^srv <* ^ 

<* ' * 






o 0 



-b & - 

tP \v - 
c* ^ - 

V? ^ » 

iV ‘ ^ 



% *' 0 v°\' •" ' l °\* s B 0 ’ V>* » ’ * » ' 

<a ^>.;, % y- > 


,V </> 




* o x 





\ •> 


°> ‘A _ , __ 

> , . % ' 0 ' 1 * n ^i 0 * « , ^ "' ' * * ' 

* v18 * . O-. ^0 „ c ^ V <p .,*1 

* ^ ^ -* -■ 

■< oCr 




,0 




\ oc ^ 


* s ^0 


\> 


!U <*• 


,o- 


* * 



-V 



^ A 


,V 


% A O. J 





■h 


V v 




AV A ° 

X v> 

0«* 1> 
o, y 

* v » B k 



0 » K 


) c> 



*o o^ 






* * ■* o A 




/ 

O ^ - n. v 

>'•■'' 0 *~ v>V*»', 

.A' * 5* 

*>> A * -a <v * 

% *v - sn _ •“ 


,^ v ^ 



> * V 


^ ^ V >s*Or^- > ^4 

\«* c- e »/V'**'V ' 

-\\ 


o o 






- ^ V* 


L i// ^ c^ v ^ 

* a 

VII, 0^°c° KC ^ ^ 

* k ^0 . c ^ 



X 0O x. 



V 

o o N 


H -71 


,°%.*° “° > v^' ' 

T* 



^ V 


\° 


v> ,#' 


^ s » » 

*k> A «*&*** * 

J 

'**'' ;\ X .f*« ^b/°*‘ .o^ c-«« 

\ ^ ^ <s^ x v 

' - a-\u///srp x_ \ c ^^ xxx 


x <0 


,0 



o 0 





8 " 0 ^ 

* A -^' * 

^ 'Kr & * 

- . x ^ v % -.% 

// ^ S S \ X ^ 

A' ^ V 1 B ^ 

A . V _/V^2^ ^ O 



O. ^ 0 « A 


s 


s <« 



m 


<p, 

s'? V, 

J- JlV 

- ^ Y 

« r 

\0 * 

\ vP 

y y. 

* .V. 0 ^ ^.^‘ONO’ \V 

' v * ' f L> r 

^ ^ * "at- a\’ < * r 



v 

o o x 


\ ^ 0 












0 * K 


0 A C »- c * ,V ' * * ' ' 

v ^ ^NXvvr^ ^ A 




•y v 

O 0 X 


a ^ " 


a 



' ^ V* 


°+ 

y o ^ x ^ O K v\ r * * * ^ 

' 1 8 I ^b v C 0 N C >?. <P, 

7 ^ G * 

^ 4 «; 

- -b 0 X ! ^ 


0 o 












0 * K 





A' /O 


* *> S 0 - \V * 8 . V * _$? s • , r 

v \y * x * 0 1 s 4 0 V s s T 

-<> V ► .3 t, « .A.' V ^mO*^w 


v 

; A- „“ 

\° °x. *, 

v ^ Ab * <y _ ■> ol\ 

^ 0 H 0 v* 

V V o - ~ *t C> V * 

V Or 



* aG 




v> «/>„ 0 



w A^' . 

^ ^ V v «r% v ^ «v <?• 

" ■<* -'".\'-‘V t ^V"*- >V■ *..-*0. 

f> * f-^W\ * Sp v 

* 

<r 

\V *> -rr. . ^ % 

C ^ V % Y * 0 /- > 

v* .<0 « .$Mk//Zk Z % v 

aXV *Cr> o 1 ^ * ca> ’A- 



0 » 


rcsoC WO >!*-/► ^ 

x .V rU 

** #’ ^ * 





o( 

H 


*- *■•'*'<^ s **, . ^HO’* / 

A 0‘ ' s '', G> V « ^ e 

V .*. A* «*$»*>', .v, 

: A ^ * 




^ rv NJ r: ^ ^ 




















